Is there actually any evidence that links leaflets stuck through letter boxes to increased vote share? We had a leaflet from the Lib Dems yesterday and its transition from letter box to recycling bin was seamless, ditto one today from some other party. Pavement pounding and leafleting strikes me as being a waste of time and paper.
It does show that they are capable of a level of effort for their own benefit - which, if elected, might become a level of effort on behalf of their constituents.
Whereas those can't be arsed to do anything when they would be the beneficiary aren't likely to do much for their constituents if elected.
Quite possibly, Mr. Richard, but that is a theory and not actual evidence that shoving leaflets through peoples' letter boxes actually increases vote share.
Whilst putting finger to keyboard may I take this opportunity to say that I am a bit miffed at Mr. Stodge who up-thread described my placing leaflets from political parties unread into the bin as an antic. There is nothing grotesque or bizarre about throwing away unwanted junk mail.
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
You don't say, come out of the closet Tapestry all is forgiven.
Variations on original formulations are not unusual.
That's interesting, thanks. Might it even be possible to 'fingerprint' it to tell which lab it might have been made in?
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
You don't say, come out of the closet Tapestry all is forgiven.
Variations on original formulations are not unusual.
That's interesting, thanks. Might it even be possible to 'fingerprint' it to tell which lab it might have been made in?
Trace chemicals in the mix *might* be traceable to various suppliers - it might be possible to work out the sources of the raw inputs into the process that made the stuff.
Hmm. Why is none of this showing up in the national polling? The explanation of better organisation at a local level sounds right. I think we will need to see much more progress on May 4th before the Tories panic too much. Most of the majorities in the ex Lib Dem seats are large and the Tories are up more nationally than the Lib Dems.
Simple Mathematics. Polls cover 635 GB seats - this relates to just 27 so hardly enough to show any national movement. The polling is from Crosby Textor that, we are told, had CON on 329 seats at GE2015.
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
You don't say, come out of the closet Tapestry all is forgiven.
Variations on original formulations are not unusual.
That's interesting, thanks. Might it even be possible to 'fingerprint' it to tell which lab it might have been made in?
Quite possibly, Mr. Jessop, but even if it can so what? Saddam's chemical warfare capability was traced back to certain West German companies but nothing ever happened about it.
Hmm. Why is none of this showing up in the national polling? The explanation of better organisation at a local level sounds right. I think we will need to see much more progress on May 4th before the Tories panic too much. Most of the majorities in the ex Lib Dem seats are large and the Tories are up more nationally than the Lib Dems.
Simple Mathematics. Polls cover 635 GB seats - this relates to just 27 so hardly enough to show any national movement. The polling is from Crosby Textor that, we are told, had CON on 329 seats at GE2015.
Local factors then.
Reminiscent of those polls which told us that local factors were going to save the LibDems in the very same seats in 2015.
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Slow hand-clap for the PLP. Just at the time the membership was MAYBE starting to reconsider support for Corbyn, they go and remind everyone why they were so irritated with the PLP (and hence why Corbyn got in) in the first place.
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Slow hand-clap for the PLP. Just at the time the membership was MAYBE starting to reconsider support for Corbyn, they go and remind everyone why they were so irritated with the PLP (and hence why Corbyn got in) in the first place.
They were irritated with the PLP for deeming the use of chemical weapons to be crossing a red line?
Is there actually any evidence that links leaflets stuck through letter boxes to increased vote share? We had a leaflet from the Lib Dems yesterday and its transition from letter box to recycling bin was seamless, ditto one today from some other party. Pavement pounding and leafleting strikes me as being a waste of time and paper.
It does show that they are capable of a level of effort for their own benefit - which, if elected, might become a level of effort on behalf of their constituents.
Whereas those can't be arsed to do anything when they would be the beneficiary aren't likely to do much for their constituents if elected.
Quite possibly, Mr. Richard, but that is a theory and not actual evidence that shoving leaflets through peoples' letter boxes actually increases vote share.
Whilst putting finger to keyboard may I take this opportunity to say that I am a bit miffed at Mr. Stodge who up-thread described my placing leaflets from political parties unread into the bin as an antic. There is nothing grotesque or bizarre about throwing away unwanted junk mail.
It seems self evident that campaigning increases a party's vote. Things like leafleting and canvassing.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Slow hand-clap for the PLP. Just at the time the membership was MAYBE starting to reconsider support for Corbyn, they go and remind everyone why they were so irritated with the PLP (and hence why Corbyn got in) in the first place.
They were irritated with the PLP for deeming the use of chemical weapons to be crossing a red line?
No, because their mantra always seems to be "bomb first, think later".
I'm yet to see any explanation of how toppling Assad (which is surely the intention of strikes like this) would be a satisfactory outcome. Do people really want ISIS to be able to take over that country? Obviously the idea of "moderate" rebels taking over is for the birds, just as it was in 2013.
Hmm. Why is none of this showing up in the national polling? The explanation of better organisation at a local level sounds right. I think we will need to see much more progress on May 4th before the Tories panic too much. Most of the majorities in the ex Lib Dem seats are large and the Tories are up more nationally than the Lib Dems.
Simple Mathematics. Polls cover 635 GB seats - this relates to just 27 so hardly enough to show any national movement. The polling is from Crosby Textor that, we are told, had CON on 329 seats at GE2015.
Local factors then.
Reminiscent of those polls which told us that local factors were going to save the LibDems in the very same seats in 2015.
Has 'two stage polling' returned yet ?
It doesn't matter much if Labour seats are falling in droves to the Conservatives.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
A handful of rich Tories are very angry about Brexit. They're far outweighed by the working and lower middle classes.
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Labour MPs are in a permanent state of appalled, it's getting boring.
Sure, but the US attack was unambiguously unlawful. It is not in self-defence and it has not been authorised by the UN Security Council. There are no two ways about it.
Lawfulness tends not to matter much in international concerns. I bet Russia says everything it has ever done has been lawful for example.
It may be unfair, as someone with no knowledge of american jurisprudence and scant knowledge of american culture, to comment, but I would assume to a certain degree, yes, since if reporting is any indication the justices usually vote upon very clear and predictable lines outside of a few issues, so if one of a certain bent is elected you know if they can they will move in certain directions as a whole, but it may not be as extreme as some fear/hope.
Not always, though. Chief Justice Roberts - a conservative - was the swing vote that kept Obamacare alive. SCOTUS does have the capacity to surprise, but you'd expect it to come down in favour of states rights and a literal reading of the constitution more often than not given its line up.
Gorusch was not someone to go to war over. The Democrats should have waved him through. They need to win the Senate next year, now, in order to prevent the conservative bias on SCOTUS getting very pronounced indeed.
Kennedy has also ruled in favour of abortion rights and on same-sex marriage, too.
Many times.
It's a great shame that he's so old now. He's probably the closest to the centre of all the justices on SCOTUS.
He and Breyer are the centre, even if both are GOP appointees. I don't see that changing with Gorsuch, who is perhaps not as conservative as Scalia was, but to the right/states' rights/constitutionalist side of both of them.
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
Diet Sarin Sarin Zero. Sarin Life. Cherry flavored Sarin.
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Labour MPs are in a permanent state of appalled, it's getting boring.
Sure, but the US attack was unambiguously unlawful. It is not in self-defence and it has not been authorised by the UN Security Council. There are no two ways about it.
Lawfulness tends not to matter much in international concerns. I bet Russia says everything it has ever done has been lawful for example.
It's lawfulness is not as black and white as Cyan asserts. You will note that Trump was crystal clear in stating that this was a threat to US security. In addition, it is a clear breach of an existing agreement to prevent hostilities to which US was a direct party.
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
Diet Sarin Sarin Zero. Sarin Life. Cherry flavored Sarin.
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Slow hand-clap for the PLP. Just at the time the membership was MAYBE starting to reconsider support for Corbyn, they go and remind everyone why they were so irritated with the PLP (and hence why Corbyn got in) in the first place.
They were irritated with the PLP for deeming the use of chemical weapons to be crossing a red line?
No, because their mantra always seems to be "bomb first, think later".
I'm yet to see any explanation of how toppling Assad (which is surely the intention of strikes like this) would be a satisfactory outcome. Do people really want ISIS to be able to take over that country? Obviously the idea of "moderate" rebels taking over is for the birds, just as it was in 2013.
Syria is repeatedly using chemical weapons, which have been banned by convention for many decades. Worse, he's using them against civilians. The international community (via the UN) is doing f'all about it.
This is important. One of the reasons countries like Syria felt able to develop such weapons was because of the west's craven attitude towards Saddam's use of them in the 1980s. They are cheaper and easier to develop than weaponised nukes (except for some biological weapons), and can be very effective in area denial. If you're a sh*t like Assad and there are not going to be any penalties for having chemical weapons, why not have them?
From a purely selfish point of view, the more states that have chemical weapons, the more likely they are to be used against us. Precedents are being set.
Incidentally, it also makes a joke of Security Council resolution 2118
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
Diet Sarin Sarin Zero. Sarin Life. Cherry flavored Sarin.
@Southam Observer, the Senate contests are horrible for the Dems in 2018. 6 of their Senate seats had margins of 9-42% for Trump. Yes, it's mid-term, and Senators can build up big personal votes, but it's still a tall order to hold these. And, never underestimate liberal Democrats' determination to lose. They could easily run campaigns against Democrats in Red States who sometimes vote with Republicans.
Hmm. Why is none of this showing up in the national polling? The explanation of better organisation at a local level sounds right. I think we will need to see much more progress on May 4th before the Tories panic too much. Most of the majorities in the ex Lib Dem seats are large and the Tories are up more nationally than the Lib Dems.
Simple Mathematics. Polls cover 635 GB seats - this relates to just 27 so hardly enough to show any national movement. The polling is from Crosby Textor that, we are told, had CON on 329 seats at GE2015.
Local factors then.
Reminiscent of those polls which told us that local factors were going to save the LibDems in the very same seats in 2015.
Has 'two stage polling' returned yet ?
It doesn't matter much if Labour seats are falling in droves to the Conservatives.
There is the grand total of three Conservative constituencies which were 60% Remain and have the LibDems within 10,000 votes:
Twickenham 66.4% Remain 2,017 maj Bath 68.4% Remain 3,833 maj Oxford W 61.9% Remain 9,582 maj
The problem the LibDems will have is if Labour looks like it might have the slightest chance of winning the general election potential voters will be scared back to voting Conservative.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Bollocks
I can easily believe it. It's 'Richmond' style thinking. These places are not especially numerous though.
As Sean F points out, the Tories are hoovering up Kippers and lost Labour elsewhere.
Whilst putting finger to keyboard may I take this opportunity to say that I am a bit miffed at Mr. Stodge who up-thread described my placing leaflets from political parties unread into the bin as an antic. There is nothing grotesque or bizarre about throwing away unwanted junk mail.
Perhaps a more plural approach wouldn't be a bad idea. Open your mind to other ideas and thoughts.
Retreating into partisan insularity is unhealthy - when East Ham Conservatives deliver their leaflet every four years (due next year so anticipation is rising), you may be sure I read it.
Well, the electors in this part of Westmorland and Lonsdale are raising Brexit unprompted and anger with the MP is unrelenting.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Is there actually any evidence that links leaflets stuck through letter boxes to increased vote share? We had a leaflet from the Lib Dems yesterday and its transition from letter box to recycling bin was seamless, ditto one today from some other party. Pavement pounding and leafleting strikes me as being a waste of time and paper.
It does show that they are capable of a level of effort for their own benefit - which, if elected, might become a level of effort on behalf of their constituents.
Whereas those can't be arsed to do anything when they would be the beneficiary aren't likely to do much for their constituents if elected.
Quite possibly, Mr. Richard, but that is a theory and not actual evidence that shoving leaflets through peoples' letter boxes actually increases vote share.
Whilst putting finger to keyboard may I take this opportunity to say that I am a bit miffed at Mr. Stodge who up-thread described my placing leaflets from political parties unread into the bin as an antic. There is nothing grotesque or bizarre about throwing away unwanted junk mail.
It seems self evident that campaigning increases a party's vote. Things like leafleting and canvassing.
Good lord, I'm a serious Coke fan (two cans a day for decades) and I've never even heard of that. Couldn't be worse than that Coke Zero that they keep trying to push onto us.
Whilst putting finger to keyboard may I take this opportunity to say that I am a bit miffed at Mr. Stodge who up-thread described my placing leaflets from political parties unread into the bin as an antic. There is nothing grotesque or bizarre about throwing away unwanted junk mail.
Perhaps a more plural approach wouldn't be a bad idea. Open your mind to other ideas and thoughts.
Retreating into partisan insularity is unhealthy - when East Ham Conservatives deliver their leaflet every four years (due next year so anticipation is rising), you may be sure I read it.
I'm not a huge fan of leafleting - I do it, under sufferance, but would prefer to canvass.
Not least because I know several leaflets in each road will be ripped up by obliging dogs!
It may be unfair, as someone with no knowledge of american jurisprudence and scant knowledge of american culture, to comment, but I would assume to a certain degree, yes, since if reporting is any indication the justices usually vote upon very clear and predictable lines outside of a few issues, so if one of a certain bent is elected you know if they can they will move in certain directions as a whole, but it may not be as extreme as some fear/hope.
Not always, though. Chief Justice Roberts - a conservative - was the swing vote that kept Obamacare alive. SCOTUS does have the capacity to surprise, but you'd expect it to come down in favour of states rights and a literal reading of the constitution more often than not given its line up.
Gorusch was not someone to go to war over. The Democrats should have waved him through. They need to win the Senate next year, now, in order to prevent the conservative bias on SCOTUS getting very pronounced indeed.
I think the Democrats filibustered because of the base (who, looking at twitter are VERY anti-Gorsuch - they see him as anti-woman and a Scalia clone among many other things) and the Senate Committee Hearings, with Gorsuch dodging quite a few questions which I think was the trigger which led to such Democrat opposition.
Talking to SeanF recently on here, he doesn't seem to think the Dems can take back the Senate. So they are going to have to pray that Kennedy doesn't retire, that Ginsburg (who is pretty old now) doesn't die, and that Beyer doesn't retire/die either.
The Democrats could have got a nominee far worse (from their point of view) than Gorsuch.
Yeah, Pryor would have been way, way more to the right. Some Conservatives on Twitter think that Gorsuch has a Trumpesque view of the world, and he'll vote in a way Trump would like. But I'm a bit sceptical of that, I think we *could* see some surprises. What do you think?
Well, the electors in this part of Westmorland and Lonsdale are raising Brexit unprompted and anger with the MP is unrelenting.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Lol - Tim will win the seat whatever the boundaries in 2020.
I've not followed the story previously but that was a damning report into the Garden Bridge.
In the way that taxpayers money can be thrown away on some trendy London gimmick with proper procedures being overruled or ignored it remind me of the Kids Company disgrace.
Isn't it about time some politicians got surcharged ?
"Boris Johnson himself reflected the confusion of purpose when he was asked about it by The New Civil Engineer, in January 2014. They reported he "wasn’t really sure what it was for", other than making a "wonderful environment for a crafty cigarette or a romantic assignation."
Top marks to Private Eye again. They've been saying for years what a scandal it is.
How do LibDems feel about Farron's support for the misile strike? I'm in two minds about it myself (depends rather what happens next and whether there's actually a plan for that), but the arguments are reminiscent of the early days that led to the Iraq war. The problem is that each step on the way seems reasonable in itself, but one has to beware where one's ending up.
Good lord, I'm a serious Coke fan (two cans a day for decades) and I've never even heard of that. Couldn't be worse than that Coke Zero that they keep trying to push onto us.
It's worse. Just the photo of the product has caused me mild nausea.
It may be unfair, as someone with no knowledge of american jurisprudence and scant knowledge of american culture, to comment, but I would assume to a certain degree, yes, since if reporting is any indication the justices usually vote upon very clear and predictable lines outside of a few issues, so if one of a certain bent is elected you know if they can they will move in certain directions as a whole, but it may not be as extreme as some fear/hope.
Not always, though. Chief Justice Roberts - a conservative - was the swing vote that kept Obamacare alive. SCOTUS does have the capacity to surprise, but you'd expect it to come down in favour of states rights and a literal reading of the constitution more often than not given its line up.
Gorusch was not someone to go to war over. The Democrats should have waved him through. They need to win the Senate next year, now, in order to prevent the conservative bias on SCOTUS getting very pronounced indeed.
Kennedy has also ruled in favour of abortion rights and on same-sex marriage, too.
Many times.
It's a great shame that he's so old now. He's probably the closest to the centre of all the justices on SCOTUS.
He and Breyer are the centre, even if both are GOP appointees. I don't see that changing with Gorsuch, who is perhaps not as conservative as Scalia was, but to the right/states' rights/constitutionalist side of both of them.
If that's the case, then I can see some of the GOP base not being too happy with Gorsuch, who they seem to think will usher in a new era of social conservatism across the U.S. I remember reading that some of the justices that were appointed by the GOP, such as Souter, O'Connor etc. have ended up disappointing some of the very right-wing Conservatives.
Whilst putting finger to keyboard may I take this opportunity to say that I am a bit miffed at Mr. Stodge who up-thread described my placing leaflets from political parties unread into the bin as an antic. There is nothing grotesque or bizarre about throwing away unwanted junk mail.
Perhaps a more plural approach wouldn't be a bad idea. Open your mind to other ideas and thoughts.
Retreating into partisan insularity is unhealthy - when East Ham Conservatives deliver their leaflet every four years (due next year so anticipation is rising), you may be sure I read it.
Mr. Stodge, You seem to be confusing me with someone else. Putting unwanted political leaflets into the recycling bin is not the sign of a closed mind anymore than dumping fliers from double glazing companies is a sign that I am not interested in maintaining my house.
I merely ask if there is any evidence that leafleting improves vote share. So far no one has produced any.
How do LibDems feel about Farron's support for the misile strike? I'm in two minds about it myself (depends rather what happens next and whether there's actually a plan for that), but the arguments are reminiscent of the early days that led to the Iraq war. The problem is that each step on the way seems reasonable in itself, but one has to beware where one's ending up.
I don't think the situation in Syria could be more different to that in Iraq in 2002-03.
Well, the electors in this part of Westmorland and Lonsdale are raising Brexit unprompted and anger with the MP is unrelenting.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Lol - Tim will win the seat whatever the boundaries in 2020.
That wasn't my point. Although you are undoubtedly wrong about the new boundaries.
Well, the electors in this part of Westmorland and Lonsdale are raising Brexit unprompted and anger with the MP is unrelenting.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Lol - Tim will win the seat whatever the boundaries in 2020.
and Nick Cotton will defeat "View From Cumbria " again on May 4th
How do LibDems feel about Farron's support for the misile strike? I'm in two minds about it myself (depends rather what happens next and whether there's actually a plan for that), but the arguments are reminiscent of the early days that led to the Iraq war. The problem is that each step on the way seems reasonable in itself, but one has to beware where one's ending up.
I am sure you said you were standing in a division in Broxtowe on May 4th - what happened - deselected ?
I hardly ever receive leaflets from the assorted parties except the mass mailout at GE time. I always have a look at them in case of any amusing bar charts to share with PB.
Hmm. Why is none of this showing up in the national polling? The explanation of better organisation at a local level sounds right. I think we will need to see much more progress on May 4th before the Tories panic too much. Most of the majorities in the ex Lib Dem seats are large and the Tories are up more nationally than the Lib Dems.
But your assumption is based on UNS. Maybe the Tories could be getting bigger swings from Labour or UKIP. The question is not how much swing there is from CON to LD, but where ?
The real question is whether the Tories will try to cheat their way to victory again next time.
I think some in the media are getting carried away re these strikes because they think it's going to lead to some big shift in US policy towards Syria.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Hard to see the logic, really. The Tories campaigned for Remain; if his beef is that they made a pretty poor fist of it, the same is true of the Lib Dems.
Let me hazard a couple of guesses: despite being on cocktail party terms with his Tory MP, he did not ring up the MP pre-referendum and offer his services to campaign for a Remain vote, and despite sounding a well-heeled sort of chap he did not write out a cheque for, ooh, £25000 or £50000 to the Remain campaign.
Hmm. Why is none of this showing up in the national polling? The explanation of better organisation at a local level sounds right. I think we will need to see much more progress on May 4th before the Tories panic too much. Most of the majorities in the ex Lib Dem seats are large and the Tories are up more nationally than the Lib Dems.
But your assumption is based on UNS. Maybe the Tories could be getting bigger swings from Labour or UKIP. The question is not how much swing there is from CON to LD, but where ?
The real question is whether the Tories will try to cheat their way to victory again next time.
All parties have received Electoral Commission fines.
Well, the electors in this part of Westmorland and Lonsdale are raising Brexit unprompted and anger with the MP is unrelenting.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Lol - Tim will win the seat whatever the boundaries in 2020.
and Nick Cotton will defeat "View From Cumbria " again on May 4th
It may be unfair, as someone with no knowledge of american jurisprudence and scant knowledge of american culture, to comment, but I would assume to a certain degree, yes, since if reporting is any indication the justices usually vote upon very clear and predictable lines outside of a few issues, so if one of a certain bent is elected you know if they can they will move in certain directions as a whole, but it may not be as extreme as some fear/hope.
Not always, though. Chief Justice Roberts - a conservative - was the swing vote that kept Obamacare alive. SCOTUS does have the capacity to surprise, but you'd expect it to come down in favour of states rights and a literal reading of the constitution more often than not given its line up.
Gorusch was not someone to go to war over. The Democrats should have waved him through. They need to win the Senate next year, now, in order to prevent the conservative bias on SCOTUS getting very pronounced indeed.
I think the Democrats filibustered because of the base (who, looking at twitter are VERY anti-Gorsuch - they see him as anti-woman and a Scalia clone among many other things) and the Senate Committee Hearings, with Gorsuch dodging quite a few questions which I think was the trigger which led to such Democrat opposition.
Talking to SeanF recently on here, he doesn't seem to think the Dems can take back the Senate. So they are going to have to pray that Kennedy doesn't retire, that Ginsburg (who is pretty old now) doesn't die, and that Beyer doesn't retire/die either.
The Democrats could have got a nominee far worse (from their point of view) than Gorsuch.
Yeah, Pryor would have been way, way more to the right. Some Conservatives on Twitter think that Gorsuch has a Trumpesque view of the world, and he'll vote in a way Trump would like. But I'm a bit sceptical of that, I think we *could* see some surprises. What do you think?
I think he'll be fairly conservative but not but a stooge of the Administration.
Well, the electors in this part of Westmorland and Lonsdale are raising Brexit unprompted and anger with the MP is unrelenting.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Lol - Tim will win the seat whatever the boundaries in 2020.
and Nick Cotton will defeat "View From Cumbria " again on May 4th
Well, the electors in this part of Westmorland and Lonsdale are raising Brexit unprompted and anger with the MP is unrelenting.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Lol - Tim will win the seat whatever the boundaries in 2020.
and Nick Cotton will defeat "View From Cumbria " again on May 4th
The Russians know more about the precise details of that chemical weapons attack than theyd like to let on that takes us well beyond just a 'didnt happen' denial.
For starters, was it regular Sarin?
Can't find the reference. What did the Russians say?
Impurities in the sarin should help identify where it was made, and if it was the same source as agent destroyed under OPCW supervision as a result of the 2013 operation.
If it's not sarin, but a variant, that would be very interesting and unexpected and worrying.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Hard to see the logic, really. The Tories campaigned for Remain; if his beef is that they made a pretty poor fist of it, the same is true of the Lib Dems.
Let me hazard a couple of guesses: despite being on cocktail party terms with his Tory MP, he did not ring up the MP pre-referendum and offer his services to campaign for a Remain vote, and despite sounding a well-heeled sort of chap he did not write out a cheque for, ooh, £25000 or £50000 to the Remain campaign.
But he is still JOLLY ANGRY.
...and completely fictional.
The inside of Roger's head must look like a Max Ernst creation.
It may be unfair, as someone with no knowledge of american jurisprudence and scant knowledge of american culture, to comment, but I would assume to a certain degree, yes, since if reporting is any indication the justices usually vote upon very clear and predictable lines outside of a few issues, so if one of a certain bent is elected you know if they can they will move in certain directions as a whole, but it may not be as extreme as some fear/hope.
Not always, though. Chief Justice Roberts - a conservative - was the swing vote that kept Obamacare alive. SCOTUS does have the capacity to surprise, but you'd expect it to come down in favour of states rights and a literal reading of the constitution more often than not given its line up.
Gorusch was not someone to go to war over. The Democrats should have waved him through. They need to win the Senate next year, now, in order to prevent the conservative bias on SCOTUS getting very pronounced indeed.
Kennedy has also ruled in favour of abortion rights and on same-sex marriage, too.
Many times.
It's a great shame that he's so old now. He's probably the closest to the centre of all the justices on SCOTUS.
He and Breyer are the centre, even if both are GOP appointees. I don't see that changing with Gorsuch, who is perhaps not as conservative as Scalia was, but to the right/states' rights/constitutionalist side of both of them.
If that's the case, then I can see some of the GOP base not being too happy with Gorsuch, who they seem to think will usher in a new era of social conservatism across the U.S. I remember reading that some of the justices that were appointed by the GOP, such as Souter, O'Connor etc. have ended up disappointing some of the very right-wing Conservatives.
Things are much more ideological now. Republicans would never nominate any judges other than conservatives these days, to replace conservatives.
But, Trump could be subtle. Say, Ginsburg dies or retires, and he nominates Garland. What arguments can the Dems come up with to oppose him.
It may be unfair, as someone with no knowledge of american jurisprudence and scant knowledge of american culture, to comment, but I would assume to a certain degree, yes, since if reporting is any indication the justices usually vote upon very clear and predictable lines outside of a few issues, so if one of a certain bent is elected you know if they can they will move in certain directions as a whole, but it may not be as extreme as some fear/hope.
Not always, though. Chief Justice Roberts - a conservative - was the swing vote that kept Obamacare alive. SCOTUS does have the capacity to surprise, but you'd expect it to come down in favour of states rights and a literal reading of the constitution more often than not given its line up.
Gorusch was not someone to go to war over. The Democrats should have waved him through. They need to win the Senate next year, now, in order to prevent the conservative bias on SCOTUS getting very pronounced indeed.
Kennedy has also ruled in favour of abortion rights and on same-sex marriage, too.
Many times.
It's a great shame that he's so old now. He's probably the closest to the centre of all the justices on SCOTUS.
He and Breyer are the centre, even if both are GOP appointees. I don't see that changing with Gorsuch, who is perhaps not as conservative as Scalia was, but to the right/states' rights/constitutionalist side of both of them.
If that's the case, then I can see some of the GOP base not being too happy with Gorsuch, who they seem to think will usher in a new era of social conservatism across the U.S. I remember reading that some of the justices that were appointed by the GOP, such as Souter, O'Connor etc. have ended up disappointing some of the very right-wing Conservatives.
Things are much more ideological now. Republicans would never nominate any judges other than conservatives these days, to replace conservatives.
But, Trump could be subtle. Say, Ginsburg dies or retires, and he nominates Garland. What arguments can the Dems come up with to oppose him.
I've not followed the story previously but that was a damning report into the Garden Bridge.
In the way that taxpayers money can be thrown away on some trendy London gimmick with proper procedures being overruled or ignored it remind me of the Kids Company disgrace.
Isn't it about time some politicians got surcharged ?
"Boris Johnson himself reflected the confusion of purpose when he was asked about it by The New Civil Engineer, in January 2014. They reported he "wasn’t really sure what it was for", other than making a "wonderful environment for a crafty cigarette or a romantic assignation."
Top marks to Private Eye again. They've been saying for years what a scandal it is.
The extraordinary thing is, even the artist's impression looks ugly. Imagine what it would be like in reality.
I've not followed the story previously but that was a damning report into the Garden Bridge.
In the way that taxpayers money can be thrown away on some trendy London gimmick with proper procedures being overruled or ignored it remind me of the Kids Company disgrace.
Isn't it about time some politicians got surcharged ?
"Boris Johnson himself reflected the confusion of purpose when he was asked about it by The New Civil Engineer, in January 2014. They reported he "wasn’t really sure what it was for", other than making a "wonderful environment for a crafty cigarette or a romantic assignation."
Top marks to Private Eye again. They've been saying for years what a scandal it is.
The extraordinary thing is, even the artist's impression looks ugly. Imagine what it would be like in reality.
I think it looks neat. But no way should so much public money have been spent on something just to look neat.
"Labour MPs ‘appalled’ at Corbyn’s attack on Syria airstrikes
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues."
Labour MPs are in a permanent state of appalled, it's getting boring.
Sure, but the US attack was unambiguously unlawful. It is not in self-defence and it has not been authorised by the UN Security Council. There are no two ways about it.
Indeed the US is in no position to accuse other states of ignoring International Law when it shows so much contempt for it on a regular basis. Trump's attitude to the United Nations is very little different in legal terms to how Adolf Hitler viewed the League of Nations.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Hard to see the logic, really. The Tories campaigned for Remain; if his beef is that they made a pretty poor fist of it, the same is true of the Lib Dems.
Let me hazard a couple of guesses: despite being on cocktail party terms with his Tory MP, he did not ring up the MP pre-referendum and offer his services to campaign for a Remain vote, and despite sounding a well-heeled sort of chap he did not write out a cheque for, ooh, £25000 or £50000 to the Remain campaign.
But he is still JOLLY ANGRY.
It's not interesting that someone I know has changed his vote and why. There will be any number of people who will change their vote in all sorts of directions for all sorts of legitimate or bizarre reasons. The point of my story is that I believe I'm seeing something that the polls aren't (though the local elections might be) and the proof of the pudding will be in the analysis of the results in May.
Hmm. Why is none of this showing up in the national polling? The explanation of better organisation at a local level sounds right. I think we will need to see much more progress on May 4th before the Tories panic too much. Most of the majorities in the ex Lib Dem seats are large and the Tories are up more nationally than the Lib Dems.
Simple Mathematics. Polls cover 635 GB seats - this relates to just 27 so hardly enough to show any national movement. The polling is from Crosby Textor that, we are told, had CON on 329 seats at GE2015.
Local factors then.
Reminiscent of those polls which told us that local factors were going to save the LibDems in the very same seats in 2015.
Has 'two stage polling' returned yet ?
It doesn't matter much if Labour seats are falling in droves to the Conservatives.
That is much less likely to be the case by the time we get to 2020.
Not always, though. Chief Justice Roberts - a conservative - was the swing vote that kept Obamacare alive. SCOTUS does have the capacity to surprise, but you'd expect it to come down in favour of states rights and a literal reading of the constitution more often than not given its line up.
Gorusch was not someone to go to war over. The Democrats should have waved him through. They need to win the Senate next year, now, in order to prevent the conservative bias on SCOTUS getting very pronounced indeed.
Kennedy has also ruled in favour of abortion rights and on same-sex marriage, too.
Many times.
It's a great shame that he's so old now. He's probably the closest to the centre of all the justices on SCOTUS.
He and Breyer are the centre, even if both are GOP appointees. I don't see that changing with Gorsuch, who is perhaps not as conservative as Scalia was, but to the right/states' rights/constitutionalist side of both of them.
If that's the case, then I can see some of the GOP base not being too happy with Gorsuch, who they seem to think will usher in a new era of social conservatism across the U.S. I remember reading that some of the justices that were appointed by the GOP, such as Souter, O'Connor etc. have ended up disappointing some of the very right-wing Conservatives.
Things are much more ideological now. Republicans would never nominate any judges other than conservatives these days, to replace conservatives.
But, Trump could be subtle. Say, Ginsburg dies or retires, and he nominates Garland. What arguments can the Dems come up with to oppose him.
Garland would be a top troll nomination from Trump.
Telegraph opinion piece on Gorsuch summed it up very well For euphemism, dissimulation and outright hypocrisy, there is nothing quite as entertaining as the periodic Senate dust-ups over Supreme Court appointments and the filibuster. The arguments for and against the filibuster are so well-known to both parties as to be practically memorized. Both nonetheless argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides – and scripts – depending on the ideology of the nominee.
I've not followed the story previously but that was a damning report into the Garden Bridge.
In the way that taxpayers money can be thrown away on some trendy London gimmick with proper procedures being overruled or ignored it remind me of the Kids Company disgrace.
Isn't it about time some politicians got surcharged ?
"Boris Johnson himself reflected the confusion of purpose when he was asked about it by The New Civil Engineer, in January 2014. They reported he "wasn’t really sure what it was for", other than making a "wonderful environment for a crafty cigarette or a romantic assignation."
Top marks to Private Eye again. They've been saying for years what a scandal it is.
The extraordinary thing is, even the artist's impression looks ugly. Imagine what it would be like in reality.
I think it looks neat. But no way should so much public money have been spent on something just to look neat.
The phrase "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" springs to mind. As for the cost, isn't David Cameron at risk of being surcharged for it? Established financial procedures were ignored. It can't be acceptable for a PM to overrule civil service advice without a credible justification. He wasn't above the law then and he certainly isn't now.
How do LibDems feel about Farron's support for the misile strike? I'm in two minds about it myself (depends rather what happens next and whether there's actually a plan for that), but the arguments are reminiscent of the early days that led to the Iraq war. The problem is that each step on the way seems reasonable in itself, but one has to beware where one's ending up.
I am sure you said you were standing in a division in Broxtowe on May 4th - what happened - deselected ?
No - I moved to the city for non-political reasons, and was therrefore no longer eligible to stand in the county.
Things are much more ideological now. Republicans would never nominate any judges other than conservatives these days, to replace conservatives.
But, Trump could be subtle. Say, Ginsburg dies or retires, and he nominates Garland. What arguments can the Dems come up with to oppose him.
If that happened, I don't see Dems opposing him. If anything, Republicans may take issue with it.
@Sandpit It's because the SCOTUS as become far too politicised. What I find intriguing is the contrast between the situation in the US, and here where the Supreme Court does not seem to be have been politicised.
Big move to Melanchon on Betfair - I got him a while back at 30+, but he's suddenly moved to 18. That's presumably the BVA poll showing him level with Fillon and only 4 behind the leaders. Another poll like that and he should move in to 10 or so.The foreign media have hardly noticed him yet - still obsessed by Le Pen.
He's still not likely to win IMO, but a great trading bet.
Andrew NeilVerified account @afneil 2h2 hours ago
What has neutral Sweden done to deserve this? Never in Mid-East war Non-Nato Most welcoming of Muslim refugees. Massive foreign aid
He's making the mistaken assumption that the problem / the reason why stuff like this happens lies with Sweden rather than with the perpetrators and what animates them.
We should stop feeling guilty for what we are or looking bewildered at having our generosity abused and do the perpetrators the credit of treating them as moral actors, making them responsible for their actions.
Andrew NeilVerified account @afneil 2h2 hours ago
What has neutral Sweden done to deserve this? Never in Mid-East war Non-Nato Most welcoming of Muslim refugees. Massive foreign aid
Assuming it was Islamic terrorism (not proven yet is it?) the book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe said in 09 "Sweden has the greatest problem with isolation and segregation of immigrants", so that may be why. Of course it could be many other things, the terrorists may not be Swedish, muslims or immigrants for all I know
I've not followed the story previously but that was a damning report into the Garden Bridge.
In the way that taxpayers money can be thrown away on some trendy London gimmick with proper procedures being overruled or ignored it remind me of the Kids Company disgrace.
Isn't it about time some politicians got surcharged ?
"Boris Johnson himself reflected the confusion of purpose when he was asked about it by The New Civil Engineer, in January 2014. They reported he "wasn’t really sure what it was for", other than making a "wonderful environment for a crafty cigarette or a romantic assignation."
Top marks to Private Eye again. They've been saying for years what a scandal it is.
The extraordinary thing is, even the artist's impression looks ugly. Imagine what it would be like in reality.
I think it looks neat. But no way should so much public money have been spent on something just to look neat.
The phrase "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" springs to mind. As for the cost, isn't David Cameron at risk of being surcharged for it? Established financial procedures were ignored. It can't be acceptable for a PM to overrule civil service advice without a credible justification. He wasn't above the law then and he certainly isn't now.
Not sure where you get that from: the report doesn't mention 'Cameron' or 'PM' once. Boris Johnson, on the other hand, has a fair few mentions; few of them complimentary.
“…But while Brexit may motivate many Lib Dems, my hunch is that what matters at least as much is something generally overlooked by us chattering Westminster types: organisation."
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
Hard to see the logic, really. The Tories campaigned for Remain; if his beef is that they made a pretty poor fist of it, the same is true of the Lib Dems.
Let me hazard a couple of guesses: despite being on cocktail party terms with his Tory MP, he did not ring up the MP pre-referendum and offer his services to campaign for a Remain vote, and despite sounding a well-heeled sort of chap he did not write out a cheque for, ooh, £25000 or £50000 to the Remain campaign.
But he is still JOLLY ANGRY.
...and completely fictional.
The inside of Roger's head must look like a Max Ernst creation.
If only the inside of my head looked like a Max Ernst creation I'd never need to go out. It reminds me of Steve Martin's line to Diane Keaton 'If I had your breasts I'd just spend all day playing with them"
Top marks to Private Eye again. They've been saying for years what a scandal it is.
The extraordinary thing is, even the artist's impression looks ugly. Imagine what it would be like in reality.
I think it looks neat. But no way should so much public money have been spent on something just to look neat.
The phrase "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" springs to mind. As for the cost, isn't David Cameron at risk of being surcharged for it? Established financial procedures were ignored. It can't be acceptable for a PM to overrule civil service advice without a credible justification. He wasn't above the law then and he certainly isn't now.
Not sure where you get that from: the report doesn't mention 'Cameron' or 'PM' once. Boris Johnson, on the other hand, has a fair few mentions; few of them complimentary.
Cameron was mentioned in a news report from October:
' David Cameron personally intervened to approve extra taxpayer funding for London's controversial Garden Bridge project, it has emerged.
The former prime minister did so against advice from officials, an investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO) found.
The NAO said nearly £23m of taxpayer money was now at risk of being lost.
Transport Minister Lord Ahmad said the government remained supportive of the project.
London mayor Sadiq Khan has ordered a full review of the proposals for the Thames river crossing.
The Whitehall spending watchdog said government ministers ignored the advice of civil servants on at least two occasions not to extend funding to the Garden Bridge Trust.
On the second occasion that they did so Conservative party chairman Sir Patrick McLoughlin, who was then transport secretary, issued a formal ministerial direction to civil servants requiring them to extend the taxpayers' exposure and underwrite liabilities of £15m if the project did not go ahead.
That ministerial direction was issued after cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood wrote to the Department for Transport (DfT) expressing the "frustration" of Mr Cameron and then chancellor George Osborne at perceived hold-ups to the funding. '
Comments
Whilst putting finger to keyboard may I take this opportunity to say that I am a bit miffed at Mr. Stodge who up-thread described my placing leaflets from political parties unread into the bin as an antic. There is nothing grotesque or bizarre about throwing away unwanted junk mail.
Reminiscent of those polls which told us that local factors were going to save the LibDems in the very same seats in 2015.
Has 'two stage polling' returned yet ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39524662
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Documents/about/letter070417.pdf
The letter says nothing anyway.
A second Conservative source told BBC Wales: "The entire Welsh Conservative group is facing de-selection."
Senior Tories, including Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns, have insisted there are no plans to allow Mr Reckless to re-join the party.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-39521122
Compleely anecdotally..........I was speaking to the most archetypal Tory I know who claims to have never voted other than Tory in his life and he's even been known to go to the odd cocktail Party at the invitation of his local Tory MP.....
......Well he's now so angry about Brexit that he's voting Lib Dem. I know anecdotes are anecdotes but we all know weathervanes and if this guy is going Lib Dem then the tectonic plates have shifted and the polls are missing it.
I'm yet to see any explanation of how toppling Assad (which is surely the intention of strikes like this) would be a satisfactory outcome. Do people really want ISIS to be able to take over that country? Obviously the idea of "moderate" rebels taking over is for the birds, just as it was in 2013.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/850422699411349507
This is important. One of the reasons countries like Syria felt able to develop such weapons was because of the west's craven attitude towards Saddam's use of them in the 1980s. They are cheaper and easier to develop than weaponised nukes (except for some biological weapons), and can be very effective in area denial. If you're a sh*t like Assad and there are not going to be any penalties for having chemical weapons, why not have them?
From a purely selfish point of view, the more states that have chemical weapons, the more likely they are to be used against us. Precedents are being set.
Incidentally, it also makes a joke of Security Council resolution 2118
Twickenham 66.4% Remain 2,017 maj
Bath 68.4% Remain 3,833 maj
Oxford W 61.9% Remain 9,582 maj
The problem the LibDems will have is if Labour looks like it might have the slightest chance of winning the general election potential voters will be scared back to voting Conservative.
As Sean F points out, the Tories are hoovering up Kippers and lost Labour elsewhere.
The Lib Dems are 2017's luvvie party.
Retreating into partisan insularity is unhealthy - when East Ham Conservatives deliver their leaflet every four years (due next year so anticipation is rising), you may be sure I read it.
It is a fact that the comments sections of the Westmorland Gazette was once unanimously pro-Farron - I guess the others were deleted. Now ? Well this is a typical story and not as hostile as most - and it is a funny photo.
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/15210804.MP_Tim_zips_into_Levens_to_open_new_aerial_runway/?ref=mr&lp=6
Leafletting, and cold-phoning have been used here for 20 years. I am sure cold-phoning doesn't work as well as it once did.
There is no doubt that to some electors Tim Farron is like Tony Blair. I doubt his photo in a leaflet is the winner it once was and in three weeks of campaigning I have yet to be told he is a good MP.
Theresa May is universally popular even with LD voters.
It has been guessed - I say no more than that - that 8,000 electors who voted for Tim Farron in 2015 voted FOR Brexit in 2016 - that is about 550 per county division. Just saying ...
Good lord, I'm a serious Coke fan (two cans a day for decades) and I've never even heard of that. Couldn't be worse than that Coke Zero that they keep trying to push onto us.
Not least because I know several leaflets in each road will be ripped up by obliging dogs!
It's worse. Just the photo of the product has caused me mild nausea.
I merely ask if there is any evidence that leafleting improves vote share. So far no one has produced any.
I think some in the media are getting carried away re these strikes because they think it's going to lead to some big shift in US policy towards Syria.
Let me hazard a couple of guesses: despite being on cocktail party terms with his Tory MP, he did not ring up the MP pre-referendum and offer his services to campaign for a Remain vote, and despite sounding a well-heeled sort of chap he did not write out a cheque for, ooh, £25000 or £50000 to the Remain campaign.
But he is still JOLLY ANGRY.
https://youtu.be/kDwM65Aemso
Impurities in the sarin should help identify where it was made, and if it was the same source as agent destroyed under OPCW supervision as a result of the 2013 operation.
If it's not sarin, but a variant, that would be very interesting and unexpected and worrying.
The inside of Roger's head must look like a Max Ernst creation.
The Lib Dem voters in the South West really liked him as PM and as a man,
Omnishambles clusterf... if true.
https://order-order.com/2017/04/06/labour-fields-two-candidates-ward/
https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/850394552469004289
But, Trump could be subtle. Say, Ginsburg dies or retires, and he nominates Garland. What arguments can the Dems come up with to oppose him.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/327859-high-skilled-worker-visas-hit-max-in-5-days
What has neutral Sweden done to deserve this?
Never in Mid-East war
Non-Nato
Most welcoming of Muslim refugees.
Massive foreign aid
Telegraph opinion piece on Gorsuch summed it up very well
For euphemism, dissimulation and outright hypocrisy, there is nothing quite as entertaining as the periodic Senate dust-ups over Supreme Court appointments and the filibuster. The arguments for and against the filibuster are so well-known to both parties as to be practically memorized. Both nonetheless argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides – and scripts – depending on the ideology of the nominee.
Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/democrats-have-reckless-arrogance-thank-gorsuchs-confirmation/
@Sandpit It's because the SCOTUS as become far too politicised. What I find intriguing is the contrast between the situation in the US, and here where the Supreme Court does not seem to be have been politicised.
I said - Yet they still voted LibDem
LibDem voters vote LibDem.
If they don't then they're not LibDem voters.
He's still not likely to win IMO, but a great trading bet.
We should stop feeling guilty for what we are or looking bewildered at having our generosity abused and do the perpetrators the credit of treating them as moral actors, making them responsible for their actions.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.129013026
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/850447794498416640
Well...
' David Cameron personally intervened to approve extra taxpayer funding for London's controversial Garden Bridge project, it has emerged.
The former prime minister did so against advice from officials, an investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO) found.
The NAO said nearly £23m of taxpayer money was now at risk of being lost.
Transport Minister Lord Ahmad said the government remained supportive of the project.
London mayor Sadiq Khan has ordered a full review of the proposals for the Thames river crossing.
The Whitehall spending watchdog said government ministers ignored the advice of civil servants on at least two occasions not to extend funding to the Garden Bridge Trust.
On the second occasion that they did so Conservative party chairman Sir Patrick McLoughlin, who was then transport secretary, issued a formal ministerial direction to civil servants requiring them to extend the taxpayers' exposure and underwrite liabilities of £15m if the project did not go ahead.
That ministerial direction was issued after cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood wrote to the Department for Transport (DfT) expressing the "frustration" of Mr Cameron and then chancellor George Osborne at perceived hold-ups to the funding. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37616161
There seems plenty of blame to go around.