Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
But weirdly they're not. Stubbornly stuck on 10%. The coalition casts a long shadow and Labour still present by far the most likely alternative
Labour is killing itself. At some stage there will
The LDs are very, very far from providing a left wing alternative. More Plaid Cymru than SNP. The quickest route to alternative is still to fix Labour.
Sadly, I fear thatto the Syrian bombing and McCluskey's re-election have confirmed that it is all over for Labour.
It has been all over for Labour many, many times before. It is possible that this is it and that Scotland will happen in England. But the LibDems are showing absolutely zero potential at the moment as a viable alternative government. None.
Agree - I have no time for Labour but watching the 1992 inquest yesterday was a timely reminder that parties can come back from the brink with remarkable ease and the LDs are really not going to soak up the left-wing or even left centre vote anytime soon.
Because Labour lost an election they were expected to win, commentators tended to ignore the fact they gained 40 seats, and didn't lose by much.
Subsequent events then favoured Labour, whereas now they've favoured the Conservatives.
Labour were very unlucky to lose Ed Balls. Had he become leader, I'm sure Labour would have the standard mid-term lead that an Opposition ought to have.
Unlucky/.. I think not, He took his eye off his own seat,. very foolish, self preservation should have kicked in
He also tended to behave alternately like an oaf or a tit in parliament, which didn't do his image any favours. If, as it might appear, he is actually a decent guy, it didn't come across when it mattered.
Not sure how much it helps or hinders, but I'd Agree - I had an Instinctive dislike of balls, but from what I read of the guy he's a decent, intelligent sort.
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy. .
But weirdly they're not. Stubbornly stuck on 10%. The coalition casts a long shadow and Labour still present by far the most likely alternative
Labour is killing itself. At some stage there will
The LDs are very, very far from providing a left wing alternative. More Plaid Cymru than SNP. The quickest route to alternative is still to fix Labour.
Sadly, I fear that horse has bolted. The Livingstone whitewash, followed by Corbyn's Stop the War Lite reaction to the Syrian bombing and McCluskey's re-election have confirmed that it is all over for Labour.
The Tories have power for the next 10 years. Being Tories they will move ever rightwards. That will open the way for a new centrist party, that is likely to be called the Liberal Democrats, to challenge for power in 2025.
Unlike felix I would hardly describe Labour's journey from 1983 to 1997 and all the associated pain along the way as "remarkable ease"! It took a Herculean effort by the moderates, a very long time, and the chance arrival of just the right leader for the times to get back into contention. In 2017 the necessary work or progress hasn't even started; indeed surely Labour is still on the way down.
I agree my phrase was unwise but in the historical context they achieved a phenomenal result just 5 years after 4 successive defeats. they won't bounce back while Corbyn is in charge or probably even after the next leader but politics can be a quick moving game in the right circumstances. The LDs for all the mini revival do not have the base to recover so quickly.
I find it hard to believe that Mélenchon would beat Le Pen if it's those two in the runoff. I don't think the middle class and those who vote for Macron in the first round would "vote for a high taxer rather than a fascist" - whatever they might tell pollsters.
But if a Mélenchon win is a reasonable prediction in that scenario, then we're close to a position where an Hamon withdrawal before 23 April could put Mélenchon into the Elysée. That's not my appraisal, but it follows from some other people's.
Unlucky/.. I think not, He took his eye off his own seat,. very foolish, self preservation should have kicked in
Unlike Chris Patten losing his seat in 1992, Ed Balls losing his wasn't exactly such a shock. He'd nearly lost it the prior election, it didn't need a much bigger swing and the Tories were completely open about targeting him.
Oh f***! As the US navy's strike group led by aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson heads towards Korea, North Korea prepares for 15 April, its "Day of the Sun".
Unlike felix I would hardly describe Labour's journey from 1983 to 1997 and all the associated pain along the way as "remarkable ease"! It took a Herculean effort by the moderates, a very long time, and the chance arrival of just the right leader for the times to get back into contention. In 2017 the necessary work or progress hasn't even started; indeed surely Labour is still on the way down.
An ABC leader of Labour is going to get an immediate and significant poll boost just by being less incompetent and more energetic than JC. If the CON-LAB margin drops into the 5-8% range then suddenly 2020 looks within the realms of possibility for Labour.
Priti Patel is hardly a government heavyweight given the potential significance of events in Syria #Marr. Boris appears to have been well and truly nobbled!
Unlucky/.. I think not, He took his eye off his own seat,. very foolish, self preservation should have kicked in
Unlike Chris Patten losing his seat in 1992, Ed Balls losing his wasn't exactly such a shock. He'd nearly lost it the prior election, it didn't need a much bigger swing and the Tories were completely open about targeting him.
Plus didn't they have TSE on the ground helping unseat him, which must have made the difference?
Unlike felix I would hardly describe Labour's journey from 1983 to 1997 and all the associated pain along the way as "remarkable ease"! It took a Herculean effort by the moderates, a very long time, and the chance arrival of just the right leader for the times to get back into contention. In 2017 the necessary work or progress hasn't even started; indeed surely Labour is still on the way down.
An ABC leader of Labour is going to get an immediate and significant poll boost just by being less incompetent and more energetic than JC. If the CON-LAB margin drops into the 5-8% range then suddenly 2020 looks within the realms of possibility for Labour.
Most new leaders get a short-term boost, but often it is temporary. If for example Owen Smith has won the recent election, I am sure he would have got a boost, but my judgement is that his inability to answer or resolve any of the fundamental questions facing the Labour Party would have quickly led to their ratings dropping back to where they are now.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Quite agree. Mind you, keeping Boris away from other people is in our national interest.
Everyone loved Boris when he was Mayor of London especially as he kept out the hideously ghastly Livingstone. His attempt to become Tory leader failed, Mayor of London is about his level.
Livingstone has deteriorated with age. Might be clinical. He was quite reasonable once. I’m not sure that Boris was that good as mayor; his legacy was the Garden Bridge and that is/was a disaster.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
I don't think it will easily fracture but it needs significant reform for which the will seems to be lacking. For me it is too inward looking and protectionist while the pressure for a USE seems doomed to fail.
If the EU fails to turn into a USE and fails to reform significantly then it will be trapped indefinitely in a worst-case scenario akin to the Labour Party. Too weak to thrive, too strong to die.
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
But weirdly they're not. Stubbornly stuck on 10%. The coalition casts a long shadow and Labour still present by far the most likely alternative
The LDs are very, very far from providing a left wing alternative. More Plaid Cymru than SNP. The quickest route to alternative is still to fix Labour.
Sadly, I fear thatto the Syrian bombing and McCluskey's re-election have confirmed that it is all over for Labour.
It has been all over for Labour many, many times before. It is possible that this is it and that Scotland will happen in England. But the LibDems are showing absolutely zero potential at the moment as a viable alternative government. None.
Agree - I have no time for Labour but watching the 1992 inquest yesterday was a timely reminder that parties can come back from the brink with remarkable ease and the LDs are really not going to soak up the left-wing or even left centre vote anytime soon.
Because Labour lost an election they were expected to win, commentators tended to ignore the fact they gained 40 seats, and didn't lose by much.
Subsequent events then favoured Labour, whereas now they've favoured the Conservatives.
Labour were very unlucky to lose Ed Balls. Had he become leader, I'm sure Labour would have the standard mid-term lead that an Opposition ought to have.
Unlucky/.. I think not, He took his eye off his own seat,. very foolish, self preservation should have kicked in
He also tended to behave alternately like an oaf or a tit in parliament, which didn't do his image any favours. If, as it might appear, he is actually a decent guy, it didn't come across when it mattered.
Not sure how much it helps or hinders, but I'd Agree - I had an Instinctive dislike of balls, but from what I read of the guy he's a decent, intelligent sort.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Quite agree. Mind you, keeping Boris away from other people is in our national interest.
Everyone loved Boris when he was Mayor of London especially as he kept out the hideously ghastly Livingstone. His attempt to become Tory leader failed, Mayor of London is about his level.
Livingstone has deteriorated with age. Might be clinical. He was quite reasonable once. I’m not sure that Boris was that good as mayor; his legacy was the Garden Bridge and that is/was a disaster.
Boris wasn't good as mayor. Really he just had an eye for the photo op and grandiose scheme, and was utterly disinterested in the huge but boring day-to-day issues that London faces.
But London voters could already see that Ken was well past his peak at the point of the last run-off, and 'not Ken again' was the key sentiment during those elections. That vote remains the only time I have ever put a Tory as my second preference, simply to avoid being saddled with an over-the-hill Ken for four years.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I take offence at that. I haven't voted Tory since 2010.
I find it hard to believe that Mélenchon would beat Le Pen if it's those two in the runoff. I don't think the middle class and those who vote for Macron in the first round would "vote for a high taxer rather than a fascist" - whatever they might tell pollsters.
But if a Mélenchon win is a reasonable prediction in that scenario, then we're close to a position where an Hamon withdrawal before 23 April could put Mélenchon into the Elysée. That's not my appraisal, but it follows from some other people's.
I'm now green on Mélenchon.
I think if Melenchon does manage to make it to the final round, he would have a good chance regardless of who he is up against. On his past performance, he would win the TV debate or debates hands down. It is the TV debates so far that have put him in the challenging position he now finds himself in and the debates ahead of a final run-off vote would be crucial.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I take offence at that. I haven't voted Tory since 2010.
If you've voted Tory once, you are tainted forever I'm afraid.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
Err, they literally just had a vote on this in Holyrood and it passed after standing on a pro independence referendum platform.
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
I don't think it will easily fracture but it needs significant reform for which the will seems to be lacking. For me it is too inward looking and protectionist while the pressure for a USE seems doomed to fail.
If the EU fails to turn into a USE and fails to reform significantly then it will be trapped indefinitely in a worst-case scenario akin to the Labour Party. Too weak to thrive, too strong to die.
I think the key to its long-term future is to forget USE but to reform significantly in the opposite direction - that would be the way to unite Europe the continent as a powerful trading bloc. The nation states will not go for a USE in the forseeable future.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
Err, they literally just had a vote on this in Holyrood and it passed after standing on a pro independence referendum platform.
There's no "err" about it, Alistair. A vote in Holyrood that only passes because a group of "opposition" MSPs have reneged on their manifesto commitment doesn't give the SNP a mandate to hold another indyref.
Indyrefs are a reserved matter. But get a majority of MSPs elected having promised one, and Britgov would have to allow one.
The SNP are the biggest foot-stampers out. The problem is that they'd be able to make capital out of getting what they richly deserve: a bloody hard clip round the earhole.
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I take offence at that. I haven't voted Tory since 2010.
Mr Clipp sees evil Tories everywhere - it's much easier than addressing the faults in his own party.
Emily Thornberry calling into question who it was that perpetrated the chemical attack in Syria.
I think Emily Thornberry is decent at interviews .Certainly an improvement on Corbyn.Was very strong on Livingstone should have been removed from the party..
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
I don't think it will easily fracture but it needs significant reform for which the will seems to be lacking. For me it is too inward looking and protectionist while the pressure for a USE seems doomed to fail.
If the EU fails to turn into a USE and fails to reform significantly then it will be trapped indefinitely in a worst-case scenario akin to the Labour Party. Too weak to thrive, too strong to die.
I think the key to its long-term future is to forget USE but to reform significantly in the opposite direction - that would be the way to unite Europe the continent as a powerful trading bloc. The nation states will not go for a USE in the forseeable future.
As Ted Heath said in 1975, "The primary purpose of the Community is a political one." Any talk of removing the political aspect not only misses the point, but is not grounded in reality.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
What has changed since Kennedy was the immediate usage of chemical weapons. Had Saddam used chemical weapons in 2002/3 then even Kennedy might have backed the war.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
I don't think it will easily fracture but it needs significant reform for which the will seems to be lacking. For me it is too inward looking and protectionist while the pressure for a USE seems doomed to fail.
If the EU fails to turn into a USE and fails to reform significantly then it will be trapped indefinitely in a worst-case scenario akin to the Labour Party. Too weak to thrive, too strong to die.
I think the key to its long-term future is to forget USE but to reform significantly in the opposite direction - that would be the way to unite Europe the continent as a powerful trading bloc. The nation states will not go for a USE in the forseeable future.
As Ted Heath said in 1975, "The primary purpose of the Community is a political one." Any talk of removing the political aspect not only misses the point, but is not grounded in reality.
It has also seen it's primary proponent leave the Community because that was not an option.
I've explained on here many times why Boris won and was re-elected. He wasn't a bad Mayor - he wasn't a good one either. He took much more power into the Mayor's office then Ken ever did but that's typical Tory centralisation for you.
As for river crossings, there were quite advanced plans for a bridge to link the North and South Circular roads in the east (at the moment we have the ever unreliable Woolwich Ferry). Linking the two roads made a lot of sense but Boris didn't agree and stopped it so we had six or seven wasted years until he realised "something had to be done" but we now have the Silvertown Tunnel (with tolls) and a new ferry (with higher fares) on the drawing board along with the Greenwich Cruise Terminal (the small ultra luxury ships can already dock at Tower Hill, the big mass market cruise ships can't come too far up the Thames - the place to build the terminal would have been nearer Ebbsfleet to join the high speed rail link into London).
On transport in general, Boris has been more interested in picking fights with the RMT but was completely outmaneuvered by a much sharper political intellect in the form of the late Bob Crow who ran rings round Boris and managed to get not only everything his members wanted but managed to get public sympathy for them. The closure of Tube ticket offices has been an unqualified disaster for those of us trying to use a service already pushed to capacity.
I'm not a fan of Boris - I think he's a better FS than Hammond but that's not saying much. The theatricals are all very good for his "image" but won't impress the serious players.
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
I don't think it will easily fracture but it needs significant reform for which the will seems to be lacking. For me it is too inward looking and protectionist while the pressure for a USE seems doomed to fail.
If the EU fails to turn into a USE and fails to reform significantly then it will be trapped indefinitely in a worst-case scenario akin to the Labour Party. Too weak to thrive, too strong to die.
I think the key to its long-term future is to forget USE but to reform significantly in the opposite direction - that would be the way to unite Europe the continent as a powerful trading bloc. The nation states will not go for a USE in the forseeable future.
As Ted Heath said in 1975, "The primary purpose of the Community is a political one." Any talk of removing the political aspect not only misses the point, but is not grounded in reality.
It has also seen it's primary proponent leave the Community because that was not an option.
So far we haven't left anything. We are still dreaming of an optimal relationship with the EU completely on our terms. It simply isn't going to happen. Something has to break, and that something will be the United Kingdom itself.
On transport in general, Boris has been more interested in picking fights with the RMT but was completely outmaneuvered by a much sharper political intellect in the form of the late Bob Crow who ran rings round Boris and managed to get not only everything his members wanted but managed to get public sympathy for them. The closure of Tube ticket offices has been an unqualified disaster for those of us trying to use a service already pushed to capacity.
How is the first sentence consistent with the second?
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
I don't think it will easily fracture but it needs significant reform for which the will seems to be lacking. For me it is too inward looking and protectionist while the pressure for a USE seems doomed to fail.
If the EU fails to turn into a USE and fails to reform significantly then it will be trapped indefinitely in a worst-case scenario akin to the Labour Party. Too weak to thrive, too strong to die.
I think the key to its long-term future is to forget USE but to reform significantly in the opposite direction - that would be the way to unite Europe the continent as a powerful trading bloc. The nation states will not go for a USE in the forseeable future.
As Ted Heath said in 1975, "The primary purpose of the Community is a political one." Any talk of removing the political aspect not only misses the point, but is not grounded in reality.
And that is exactly why we don't want to be part of it.
Oh come on. A ex party leader joining a rival is a biggish story that asks a few questions. Blukip is real. The Tories are expanding to the right ,moving the centre of mass. The question is, what does it mean long-term
Here's a recent example of centrist Blukip thinking. How many Tory MPs agree?
She's possibly right. Changes are what create the biggest opportunities and given that the Eurozone has performed dreadfully since its inception it might be an opportunity if it were to break up. I doubt it, there are too many factors in play there that didn't affect us but it's possible.
I don't think it will easily fracture but it needs significant reform for which the will seems to be lacking. For me it is too inward looking and protectionist while the pressure for a USE seems doomed to fail.
If the EU fails to turn into a USE and fails to reform significantly then it will be trapped indefinitely in a worst-case scenario akin to the Labour Party. Too weak to thrive, too strong to die.
I think the key to its long-term future is to forget USE but to reform significantly in the opposite direction - that would be the way to unite Europe the continent as a powerful trading bloc. The nation states will not go for a USE in the forseeable future.
As Ted Heath said in 1975, "The primary purpose of the Community is a political one." Any talk of removing the political aspect not only misses the point, but is not grounded in reality.
It has also seen it's primary proponent leave the Community because that was not an option.
So far we haven't left anything. We are still dreaming of an optimal relationship with the EU completely on our terms. It simply isn't going to happen. Something has to break, and that something will be the United Kingdom itself.
I would agree that re-entry as policy at the next election would bre a mistake, but a policy of joining the EEA is really quite sensible.
Apart from anything else, I don't think that the EU would let us rejoinn for at least another generation.
I agree. Once we are out, we are out. EEA membership is something I would back and it's why I was not that bothered about losing the referendum as, foolishly, I believed that is where sensible Tories would take us to. I did not imagine - again foolishly in retrospect - that May would prioritise her coverage in the right wing Tory press over everything else.
Do you think the EEA will work for us and that we would mechanically implement all rules from the EU without any input at all? We're not Norway who are willing to outsource a large part of their external relations. In any case the people running Norway think EEA is a nonsense but accept it as the necessary compromise with those that don't want full EU membership.
On the whole, I think we're better with Canada Plus, although that arrangement definitely favours the EU side more than us. In the meantime we will need a transition, which effectively will be EEA, so I guess we will have to make that work. The transition to Canada Plus will be a lot longer than three years and may not happen at all. The EU has put measures to limit the EEA style transition to three years, which may be just enough for rEU countries to adapt to the disintegration. It won't be for us, which is probably the point.
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I think to say that he is "doing very well indeed" is possibly overstating the case a bit. I've certainly been won over by the Liberal Democrats (from the Conservatives) in terms of message, ideals etc but I haven't been too impressed by Tim Farron yet. Obviously he's not a barrier to the party getting my support, donations and votes and I have no interest at all in seeing him replaced either... but he does need to up his game a bit to reach the next level of potential new supporters beyond the ones such as myself that are being reached at the moment.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
May, should grant the referendum. SNP are a one trick pony, who have proved, less than adequate at the actual day to day running of a country
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
Err, they literally just had a vote on this in Holyrood and it passed after standing on a pro independence referendum platform.
There's no "err" about it, Alistair. A vote in Holyrood that only passes because a group of "opposition" MSPs have reneged on their manifesto commitment doesn't give the SNP a mandate to hold another indyref.
Indyrefs are a reserved matter. But get a majority of MSPs elected having promised one, and Britgov would have to allow one.
The SNP are the biggest foot-stampers out. The problem is that they'd be able to make capital out of getting what they richly deserve: a bloody hard clip round the earhole.
They certainly inspire a humungously large amount of foot stamping among you and your ilk.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
Err, they literally just had a vote on this in Holyrood and it passed after standing on a pro independence referendum platform.
There's no "err" about it, Alistair. A vote in Holyrood that only passes because a group of "opposition" MSPs have reneged on their manifesto commitment doesn't give the SNP a mandate to hold another indyref.
Indyrefs are a reserved matter. But get a majority of MSPs elected having promised one, and Britgov would have to allow one.
The SNP are the biggest foot-stampers out. The problem is that they'd be able to make capital out of getting what they richly deserve: a bloody hard clip round the earhole.
" Now on the wrong side of not just the SNP but a myriad of civil society groups who carry the torch of hope in their country, the SLP looks like a rump of angry people who demand that the UK Party must never speak to the SNP. No surrender indeed! Meanwhile they look set to lose every council they run in May - not least Glasgow – with the SNP itching to open the books up on decades of council contracts. At the moment the SLP is fighting it out with the Greens for who is fourth in the polls. Having painted themselves into a corner, they stand holding the brush – furious with everyone who looks on. "
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Why would Americans give a damn?
Brexit is a threat to the political stability of Europe which is a fundamental national interest of the US. It's in America's interest to ensure it is the EU which comes out of the process strengthened.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
I find it hard to believe that Mélenchon would beat Le Pen if it's those two in the runoff. I don't think the middle class and those who vote for Macron in the first round would "vote for a high taxer rather than a fascist" - whatever they might tell pollsters.
But if a Mélenchon win is a reasonable prediction in that scenario, then we're close to a position where an Hamon withdrawal before 23 April could put Mélenchon into the Elysée. That's not my appraisal, but it follows from some other people's.
I'm now green on Mélenchon.
I think if Melenchon does manage to make it to the final round, he would have a good chance regardless of who he is up against. On his past performance, he would win the TV debate or debates hands down. It is the TV debates so far that have put him in the challenging position he now finds himself in and the debates ahead of a final run-off vote would be crucial.
That's a good point. He would probably win the inter-round TV debate. But there would be some resistance to voting for his tax policy among those who voted in R1 for centrist or right-wing candidates other than his opponent. He'd have a harder task than he has had winning votes from Hamon.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Why would Americans give a damn?
Brexit is a threat to the political stability of Europe which is a fundamental national interest of the US. It's in America's interest to ensure it is the EU which comes out of the process strengthened.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
On transport in general, Boris has been more interested in picking fights with the RMT but was completely outmaneuvered by a much sharper political intellect in the form of the late Bob Crow who ran rings round Boris and managed to get not only everything his members wanted but managed to get public sympathy for them. The closure of Tube ticket offices has been an unqualified disaster for those of us trying to use a service already pushed to capacity.
How is the first sentence consistent with the second?
The key words are "everything his members wanted". That meant no compulsory redundancies at the time and good pay-offs later just as the unions also got bonuses for drivers working during the Olympics and for those working on the night shift on the 24-hour lines. The RMT, for all their weasel words, were no more interested in the ticket offices than Boris - they just wanted to ensure their members weren't out of pocket.
Transport for London hoped the closed ticket offices could become income generators as retail space but most stations already have a kiosk/paper shop or similar either in or very near the station so what were these retail spaces meant to be ?
I do think Crow's successor, Mick Cash, hasn't played such a good hand and TfL have learnt how to negotiate a lot better and that was oddly when Boris's appointees were replaced by more experienced transport managers.
No one of course represents the poor passengers (or customers) in these dealings though both sides claim vehemently they are acting "for the public". Neither are - both are only interested in their own constituencies or political ambitions as appropriate.
It's fair to say a large part of the Scottish electorate are fed up to their back teeth with talk of another independence referendum. Possibly even a slight majority. However if there is a referendum you can only answer the question placed in front of you, whether you think that question is stupid, or in this case disrespectful of a decision that has already been made. Unless the referendum is properly constituted it will be substantially ignored and invalid.
I think this is a case of the SNP believing their own propaganda and thinking they represent Scotland. They don't. They represent a large faction in Scotland.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Again, I am talking about the consequences of the vote. Just because you voted to remain doesn't mean you aren't affected by the consequences of leaving.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
May, should grant the referendum. SNP are a one trick pony, who have proved, less than adequate at the actual day to day running of a country
They have been so inadequate that people keep on voting them in, one way or another, to run the government since 2007.
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I think to say that he is "doing very well indeed" is possibly overstating the case a bit. I've certainly been won over by the Liberal Democrats (from the Conservatives) in terms of message, ideals etc but I haven't been too impressed by Tim Farron yet. Obviously he's not a barrier to the party getting my support, donations and votes and I have no interest at all in seeing him replaced either... but he does need to up his game a bit to reach the next level of potential new supporters beyond the ones such as myself that are being reached at the moment.
A good post. I'm a bit of a Farron cheerleader on here (at least compared to some of the antis), and tipped him for the leadership many moons ago.
But that was on the understanding that his first and most important priority was to rebuild the party from the grassroots up. He is doing this fairly successfully.
However, he is not the person to build the party up into something more. He is like Howard, and is performing a similar role to the one Howard did for the Conservatives up to 2005. Stop the rot. Build the party. Give them a new direction. Hand over to someone else.
A significant problem is that none of their nine MPs seem to be suitable for the next phase afterwards: that of creating a more mass-market appeal. This is a shame, as Labour's decline gives them a massive opportunity.
I think this is a case of the SNP believing their own propaganda and thinking they represent Scotland. They don't. They represent a large faction in Scotland.
On the flip side, there is a danger for Theresa May in assuming she represents the rest.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Eh? There was a general election in the middle. Things definitely have changed since 2014. No doubt about that
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
With a higher turnout and a different franchise. Notably EU citizens could vote in the independence referendum but not in the EU referendum.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Eh? There was a general election in the middle. Things definitely have changed since 2014. No doubt about that
A general election which saw the government re-elected confirming it's pre existing policy.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
Err, they literally just had a vote on this in Holyrood and it passed after standing on a pro independence referendum platform.
There's no "err" about it, Alistair. A vote in Holyrood that only passes because a group of "opposition" MSPs have reneged on their manifesto commitment doesn't give the SNP a mandate to hold another indyref.
Indyrefs are a reserved matter. But get a majority of MSPs elected having promised one, and Britgov would have to allow one.
The SNP are the biggest foot-stampers out. The problem is that they'd be able to make capital out of getting what they richly deserve: a bloody hard clip round the earhole.
I see you are having trouble parsing and understanding both the Green manifesto and every statement on independence made by the Greens during the Holyrood election campaign.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
Do you think they carried that argument? What polling evidence do you have?
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Eh? There was a general election in the middle. Things definitely have changed since 2014. No doubt about that
A general election which saw the government re-elected confirming it's pre existing policy.
I've seen some stretched arguments on PB, but yours is quite the elastic man. The idea that Brexit could have been priced into the Indy ref is absurd.
If correct we must surely congratulate Mr Farron on securing a vital element of successful political leadership.
Foreign affairs is the one area where opposition leaders have to be very careful not to be seen to be opportunistic shits. I don't know how much it damaged Ed Miliband, but his behaviour in 2013 was despicable. Fortunately for the Lib Dems, most people haven't heard of Tim Farron.
Whether Miliband or Farron fall into your political accolade of "opportunist shits" is open to debate. The same and worse was said during the Iraq war of Charles Kennedy.
It might be said of foreign affairs, especially involving military intervention, that forensic scrutiny and scepticism from the opposition is no bad thing. Government backers will roar opportunism, the more cautious will reserve judgement.
I'd say the flip side is that the government has an obligation to not play games over this stuff and be up front and honest. That certainly wasn't the case with Iraq and fair play to Kennedy calling it out.
But calling the Foreign Secretary a "poodle of Washington" is just bizarre. From what I can tell, we're coordinating our response to the chemical attack with the Americans which seems sensible. Perhaps it shows that being Foreign Secretary isn't that big a deal these days, but I'd have thought the Lib Dems would be happy about that.
poodle is far more accurate, they got the call from US to tell them that Boris was not needed and that the Big Dog would deliver the message , lapdog messenger not required. Boris can go and party with the G7 and make sympathetic noises about the Syrians being murdered while stuffing himself with 5 star food and champers.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
With a higher turnout and a different franchise. Notably EU citizens could vote in the independence referendum but not in the EU referendum.
If turnout is lower it's because people don't care enough to vote. Not a reason to overturn a vote. As for foreign nationals I don't think you're suggesting surely that there is net half a million foreign nationals wanting to Remain in the EU to trump Remaining in the UK? Or that those foreign nationals should trump what Scots want surely?
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
FWIW one of Better Together's main attack lines was that a vote for SINDY was a vote to leave the EU !!
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
Do you think they carried that argument? What polling evidence do you have?
The SNP are hanging SINDYREF2 on the small print of page 27 of their detailed manifesto - it was absent from their "easy read one".
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
I am less convinced by Farrons support for Trump's "Wag the Dog" conversion to bombing Assad. America is now bombing both sides in the Syrian Civil War, with no plan as to what to do next.
Credit where it is due, Nuttall has condemned the bombing, alongside Jezza and the Green Party.
With the Tories heading right and Labour destroying itself on the far left, the gap in the centre is getting bigger and bigger. It won't happen quickly, but the LDs must fancy their chances over the longer term of filling it.
But weirdly they're not. Stubbornly stuck on 10%. The coalition casts a long shadow and Labour still present by far the most likely alternative
Labour is killing itself. At some stage there will be a tipping point when all but the most obstinate far leftist will realise there is no way back for the party. Right now, a lot of people on the centre left are betting that Corbyn will be go before the next GE. But with McCluskey set to be strengthened by re-election, that is now looking a lot less likely. I do think Farron is a problem for the LDs, but he is not in insurmountable one.
The LDs are very, very far from providing a left wing alternative. More Plaid Cymru than SNP. The quickest route to alternative is still to fix Labour.
Sadly, I fear that horse has bolted. The Livingstone whitewash, followed by Corbyn's Stop the War Lite reaction to the Syrian bombing and McCluskey's re-election have confirmed that it is all over for Labour.
The Tories have power for the next 10 years. Being Tories they will move ever rightwards. That will open the way for a new centrist party, that is likely to be called the Liberal Democrats, to challenge for power in 2025.
I'd agree with that, and could perhaps be persuaded to vote LD in the future, but not while they want to dive straight back into the full throttle EU. That would be a big stumbling block for a lot of people like me, I guess.
They are such a bunch of unprincipled liars that I could never vote for them. You could never trust that they would actually keep their word on anything.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
I think Tim Farron is doing very well. He is getting airtime. That's a plus. He has a good turn of phrase (eg Boris and poodle go well together) so people remember it and it gets reported. He is quick and clear on issues eg bombing of Syrian airfield, so you know where he stands. He enthuses the troops. I'm even getting used to his "look" which was off-putting to start with.
Specifically on Trump's missile attack - this was a careful one-off attack on an airfield, (having warned the Russians in advance), that might just deter Assad from further chemical weapons attack. It isn't a plunging into a swamp, killing millions, facilitating terrorist groups with no exit plan which the Iraq and Libyan tragedies were. I marched against the Iraq war as did Farron. I support Farron on his latest response. There is no contradiction.
Edit: His opponents are calling him "an opportunistic shit". That's a plus. He's getting attention and he's got them worried.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
Do you think they carried that argument? What polling evidence do you have?
The SNP are hanging SINDYREF2 on the small print of page 27 of their detailed manifesto - it was absent from their "easy read one".
Sturgeon talked about it at the leader debates. You'd have to be a blithering moron not to know it.
I think to say that he is "doing very well indeed" is possibly overstating the case a bit. I've certainly been won over by the Liberal Democrats (from the Conservatives) in terms of message, ideals etc but I haven't been too impressed by Tim Farron yet. Obviously he's not a barrier to the party getting my support, donations and votes and I have no interest at all in seeing him replaced either... but he does need to up his game a bit to reach the next level of potential new supporters beyond the ones such as myself that are being reached at the moment.
As a LD supporter and member, I appreciate that as an honest assessment. The problem is, we have a limited pool of MPs at present and only Tim and Norman Lamb decided to stand for the leadership in 2015 (I wanted Tom Brake to stand and told him so but he wasn't interested). I attended the London Hustings and it was gratifying to see so many new (and returning) Members.
For all the good that I think our presence in the Coalition did (and I think for all the airbrushing of the Coalition years by some on here, I think 2010-15 will be looked on positively), the fact was mistakes were made (Nick Clegg openly acknowledges these in his book) but the experience gained was invaluable.
The Party was prostrate in 2015 (much as it was in 1988) and it needed someone with fire, energy and passion to get us off the ground and moving again. Tim is that in a way Norman isn't and that's not to denigrate Norman who would, under other circumstances, have been the right choice.
For now and for the foreseeable it's about rebuilding the Party, getting back into the fight at local level, scrapping for everything and trying to get people to remember who we are and listen to us again and we need someone who's a bit shouty and who will irritate some (and especially those who would never support us)
Paddy was like that from 1988, Kinnock was the same with Labour after 1983 and Tim is like that now. Those who will never support any Liberal Democrat will find a way to denigrate, talk down, belittle or patronise - one of my political rules is when your opponents start being nice to you, you are in real trouble.
Tim isn't the finished article - I'm sure he knows that - but he can take us a long way (aided, as he will have to be, by the arrogance of others). He'll need luck (Richmond Park was extraordinarily fortunate) but all politicians do. For now, I'm pleased with how he's going and broadly supportive - the call for a referendum on the deal to leave the EU is correct but of course it's being misrepresented by our opponents as a subversion of democracy (which it isn't). Tim, like the Prime Minister, wants the best exit deal for Britain - the only difference is, his idea of "the best deal" probably won';t be her's but we'll see.
"The Westminster terrorist had a key role at a mosque that urges Muslims to take up weapons to gain “victory over the Jews and the rest of the enemies of Islam”.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Quite agree. Mind you, keeping Boris away from other people is in our national interest.
Everyone loved Boris when he was Mayor of London especially as he kept out the hideously ghastly Livingstone. His attempt to become Tory leader failed, Mayor of London is about his level.
Livingstone has deteriorated with age. Might be clinical. He was quite reasonable once. I’m not sure that Boris was that good as mayor; his legacy was the Garden Bridge and that is/was a disaster.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
He will go nowhere, have you ever listened to him , incoherent ranting halfwit.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Eh? There was a general election in the middle. Things definitely have changed since 2014. No doubt about that
A general election which saw the government re-elected confirming it's pre existing policy.
I've seen some stretched arguments on PB, but yours is quite the elastic man. The idea that Brexit could have been priced into the Indy ref is absurd.
The result of the referendum certainly was not priced in but the fact there would be one most certainly was. And Salmond, Sturgeon and co repeatedly used the fact there would be a Brexit referendum as an argument to vote Yes. So yes that there would be a referendum was completely priced in.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
They clearly have a plan and it will not be run by following right wing rags for sure. They are in no hurry despite the unionists claims, it is they who are wetting their pants not the SNP.
A good post. I'm a bit of a Farron cheerleader on here (at least compared to some of the antis), and tipped him for the leadership many moons ago.
But that was on the understanding that his first and most important priority was to rebuild the party from the grassroots up. He is doing this fairly successfully.
However, he is not the person to build the party up into something more. He is like Howard, and is performing a similar role to the one Howard did for the Conservatives up to 2005. Stop the rot. Build the party. Give them a new direction. Hand over to someone else.
A significant problem is that none of their nine MPs seem to be suitable for the next phase afterwards: that of creating a more mass-market appeal. This is a shame, as Labour's decline gives them a massive opportunity.
Yes, the last general election didn't leave them with any choice other than to elect Tim Farron as leader because there was simply nobody else remotely suitable for leadership left standing after the cull. I think Sarah Olney has some potential but not quite yet. It's possible that the next LibDem leadership election will be fought out entirely by candidates who enter parliament at the 2020 general election (either entirely new MPs or returning former MPs).
Amazing, they are actually thinking of passing a bill in the Scottish Parliament!
Rob , they get on with running the country, no need to pass unnecessary snooping bills , or bills on tax credits that make rape victims have to prove they were raped, like Westminster. No need to be continually poking into people's lives unnecessarily , unfortunately people like yourself and Tories and Labour think the quantity of crap bills they pass means something.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
Err, they literally just had a vote on this in Holyrood and it passed after standing on a pro independence referendum platform.
There's no "err" about it, Alistair. A vote in Holyrood that only passes because a group of "opposition" MSPs have reneged on their manifesto commitment doesn't give the SNP a mandate to hold another indyref.
Indyrefs are a reserved matter. But get a majority of MSPs elected having promised one, and Britgov would have to allow one.
The SNP are the biggest foot-stampers out. The problem is that they'd be able to make capital out of getting what they richly deserve: a bloody hard clip round the earhole.
they were elected on this very item and it was in their manifesto , they are merely following government policy.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
What has changed since Kennedy was the immediate usage of chemical weapons. Had Saddam used chemical weapons in 2002/3 then even Kennedy might have backed the war.
In 2013 Farron abstained on bombing Assad, despite Assad having used nerve gas on civilians and IS not yet being the major opposition. What has changed beside his mind?
Bear in mind that even May was poo pooing military action just a few days ago. We truly are Trumps poodle.
I think to say that he is "doing very well indeed" is possibly overstating the case a bit. I've certainly been won over by the Liberal Democrats (from the Conservatives) in terms of message, ideals etc but I haven't been too impressed by Tim Farron yet. Obviously he's not a barrier to the party getting my support, donations and votes and I have no interest at all in seeing him replaced either... but he does need to up his game a bit to reach the next level of potential new supporters beyond the ones such as myself that are being reached at the moment.
For all the good that I think our presence in the Coalition did (and I think for all the airbrushing of the Coalition years by some on here, I think 2010-15 will be looked on positively)
I agree, but my general impression, as an outsider, is that the people most keen on airbrushing the Coalition years are the LDs, and in particular the new members. They certainly will never, in this generation, should the opportunity arise (which is improbable) ever agree to coalition with the Tories no matter how hypothetically better a deal they might get. Possibly not even Labour given how poorly the coalition years went, but only them if an opportunity came up.
So really its important to see how strong they intend to be as their own distinct identity, and how much just Labour lite. I'd prefer the former as much as possible.
Comments
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-considers-calling-mays-bluff-on-vote-vsnhfbb9h?shareToken=e161699d0a1c66011fbf0b161e9095ae
But if a Mélenchon win is a reasonable prediction in that scenario, then we're close to a position where an Hamon withdrawal before 23 April could put Mélenchon into the Elysée. That's not my appraisal, but it follows from some other people's.
I'm now green on Mélenchon.
I’m not sure that Boris was that good as mayor; his legacy was the Garden Bridge and that is/was a disaster.
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
Little Salmond then Priti Patel then Emily Dingleberry.
Help. Time for a walk.
But London voters could already see that Ken was well past his peak at the point of the last run-off, and 'not Ken again' was the key sentiment during those elections. That vote remains the only time I have ever put a Tory as my second preference, simply to avoid being saddled with an over-the-hill Ken for four years.
Indyrefs are a reserved matter. But get a majority of MSPs elected having promised one, and Britgov would have to allow one.
The SNP are the biggest foot-stampers out. The problem is that they'd be able to make capital out of getting what they richly deserve: a bloody hard clip round the earhole.
Another glorious day in Sadiq's fiefdom.
I've explained on here many times why Boris won and was re-elected. He wasn't a bad Mayor - he wasn't a good one either. He took much more power into the Mayor's office then Ken ever did but that's typical Tory centralisation for you.
As for river crossings, there were quite advanced plans for a bridge to link the North and South Circular roads in the east (at the moment we have the ever unreliable Woolwich Ferry). Linking the two roads made a lot of sense but Boris didn't agree and stopped it so we had six or seven wasted years until he realised "something had to be done" but we now have the Silvertown Tunnel (with tolls) and a new ferry (with higher fares) on the drawing board along with the Greenwich Cruise Terminal (the small ultra luxury ships can already dock at Tower Hill, the big mass market cruise ships can't come too far up the Thames - the place to build the terminal would have been nearer Ebbsfleet to join the high speed rail link into London).
On transport in general, Boris has been more interested in picking fights with the RMT but was completely outmaneuvered by a much sharper political intellect in the form of the late Bob Crow who ran rings round Boris and managed to get not only everything his members wanted but managed to get public sympathy for them. The closure of Tube ticket offices has been an unqualified disaster for those of us trying to use a service already pushed to capacity.
I'm not a fan of Boris - I think he's a better FS than Hammond but that's not saying much. The theatricals are all very good for his "image" but won't impress the serious players.
On transport in general, Boris has been more interested in picking fights with the RMT but was completely outmaneuvered by a much sharper political intellect in the form of the late Bob Crow who ran rings round Boris and managed to get not only everything his members wanted but managed to get public sympathy for them. The closure of Tube ticket offices has been an unqualified disaster for those of us trying to use a service already pushed to capacity.
How is the first sentence consistent with the second?
On the whole, I think we're better with Canada Plus, although that arrangement definitely favours the EU side more than us. In the meantime we will need a transition, which effectively will be EEA, so I guess we will have to make that work. The transition to Canada Plus will be a lot longer than three years and may not happen at all. The EU has put measures to limit the EEA style transition to three years, which may be just enough for rEU countries to adapt to the disintegration. It won't be for us, which is probably the point.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/china-post-race-analysis-2017.html
Quite a few interesting little things to note from this race.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/labour-should-stop-indulging-its-scottish-party-and-broker-progressive
" Now on the wrong side of not just the SNP but a myriad of civil society groups who carry the torch of hope in their country, the SLP looks like a rump of angry people who demand that the UK Party must never speak to the SNP. No surrender indeed! Meanwhile they look set to lose every council they run in May - not least Glasgow – with the SNP itching to open the books up on decades of council contracts. At the moment the SLP is fighting it out with the Greens for who is fourth in the polls. Having painted themselves into a corner, they stand holding the brush – furious with everyone who looks on. "
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
Anyway I'm now covered!
Transport for London hoped the closed ticket offices could become income generators as retail space but most stations already have a kiosk/paper shop or similar either in or very near the station so what were these retail spaces meant to be ?
I do think Crow's successor, Mick Cash, hasn't played such a good hand and TfL have learnt how to negotiate a lot better and that was oddly when Boris's appointees were replaced by more experienced transport managers.
No one of course represents the poor passengers (or customers) in these dealings though both sides claim vehemently they are acting "for the public". Neither are - both are only interested in their own constituencies or political ambitions as appropriate.
The site needs a few more Corbynites and far fewer centrists.
I think this is a case of the SNP believing their own propaganda and thinking they represent Scotland. They don't. They represent a large faction in Scotland.
Off to breakfast.
But that was on the understanding that his first and most important priority was to rebuild the party from the grassroots up. He is doing this fairly successfully.
However, he is not the person to build the party up into something more. He is like Howard, and is performing a similar role to the one Howard did for the Conservatives up to 2005. Stop the rot. Build the party. Give them a new direction. Hand over to someone else.
A significant problem is that none of their nine MPs seem to be suitable for the next phase afterwards: that of creating a more mass-market appeal. This is a shame, as Labour's decline gives them a massive opportunity.
Remain in the EU 1,661,191
Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Specifically on Trump's missile attack - this was a careful one-off attack on an airfield, (having warned the Russians in advance), that might just deter Assad from further chemical weapons attack. It isn't a plunging into a swamp, killing millions, facilitating terrorist groups with no exit plan which the Iraq and Libyan tragedies were. I marched against the Iraq war as did Farron. I support Farron on his latest response. There is no contradiction.
Edit: His opponents are calling him "an opportunistic shit". That's a plus. He's getting attention and he's got them worried.
For all the good that I think our presence in the Coalition did (and I think for all the airbrushing of the Coalition years by some on here, I think 2010-15 will be looked on positively), the fact was mistakes were made (Nick Clegg openly acknowledges these in his book) but the experience gained was invaluable.
The Party was prostrate in 2015 (much as it was in 1988) and it needed someone with fire, energy and passion to get us off the ground and moving again. Tim is that in a way Norman isn't and that's not to denigrate Norman who would, under other circumstances, have been the right choice.
For now and for the foreseeable it's about rebuilding the Party, getting back into the fight at local level, scrapping for everything and trying to get people to remember who we are and listen to us again and we need someone who's a bit shouty and who will irritate some (and especially those who would never support us)
Paddy was like that from 1988, Kinnock was the same with Labour after 1983 and Tim is like that now. Those who will never support any Liberal Democrat will find a way to denigrate, talk down, belittle or patronise - one of my political rules is when your opponents start being nice to you, you are in real trouble.
Tim isn't the finished article - I'm sure he knows that - but he can take us a long way (aided, as he will have to be, by the arrogance of others). He'll need luck (Richmond Park was extraordinarily fortunate) but all politicians do. For now, I'm pleased with how he's going and broadly supportive - the call for a referendum on the deal to leave the EU is correct but of course it's being misrepresented by our opponents as a subversion of democracy (which it isn't). Tim, like the Prime Minister, wants the best exit deal for Britain - the only difference is, his idea of "the best deal" probably won';t be her's but we'll see.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/westminster-killers-link-to-luton-mosque-vfs9z2cw2
"The Westminster terrorist had a key role at a mosque that urges Muslims to take up weapons to gain “victory over the Jews and the rest of the enemies of Islam”.
Is this not hate speech / incitement?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/bomb-found-outside-oslo-station-days-after-stockholm-attack-a3510906.html
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Bear in mind that even May was poo pooing military action just a few days ago. We truly are Trumps poodle.
So really its important to see how strong they intend to be as their own distinct identity, and how much just Labour lite. I'd prefer the former as much as possible.