I'm not sure I agree 25 is the floor for Labour. Remember this is midterm, when the opposition it at its strongest (stop laughing at the back).
Under the sustained assault of Labour could go down to 20, or below.
Remember, Labour once dominated Scotland. They were impregnable. Today they are on ten percent - yes, a subsample, but still. TEN PERCENT. They're dead, north of the border. There is no law that says they must nonetheless survive south of the border.
Someone replaced them north of the border. Despite the suddenness of the end, when it came, the signs were there it might happen. There is no sign of that in England.
Yes, that's the only thing saving them - especially UKIP being so utterly shite. But the LDs, Greens and UKIP could still nibble away, taking them down to 20.
That said, if they can make it through 2020 without being totally annihilated, then find a decent new leader, they will surely recover. But without Scotland (which seems permanently lost) a Labour majority is always going to be very hard to achieve, from now on.
Labour won a majority of seats in England and Wales in 1945, 1950, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005 so even without many seats in Scotland with a credible leader they could achieve it
The number of MPs is going to be reduced from 650 to 600 next year, Wales will be hardest hit going from 40 MPs down to 21. With the boundary changes Labour would lose a total of 29 seats, the Tories only 12 based on 2005 results. If Labour can't win in Scotland and the Tories can now win some seats there, Labour might never win a General Election again. I think their floor is about 15%, Corbyn might be ousted in May next year if Labour lose a large number of London council seats.
No, Blair won comfortable majorities in England in 1997, 2001 and 2005 in terms of seats as did Attlee in 1945 and Wilson in 1966
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
When was a 21% lead last seen, sometime in the mid nineties under Blair?
Dave achieved a 28% lead in 2008.
When was the last time the government had a 21% lead?
See below. Blair in 2002.
Tories in power til 2025 or 2030.
Lets hopemit's only 2025, if it was until 2030 labour would thrash the dying tory government in May 2030 with a blair style landslide and remain in paower for 15 years causing immense damage to the country as they did last time they won 3 consecutive terms.
I'm not sure I agree 25 is the floor for Labour. Remember this is midterm, when the opposition it at its strongest (stop laughing at the back).
Under the sustained assault of Labour could go down to 20, or below.
Remember, Labour once dominated Scotland. They were impregnable. Today they are on ten percent - yes, a subsample, but still. TEN PERCENT. They're dead, north of the border. There is no law that says they must nonetheless survive south of the border.
Someone replaced them north of the border. Despite the suddenness of the end, when it came, the signs were there it might happen. There is no sign of that in England.
Yes, that's the only thing saving them - especially UKIP being so utterly shite. But the LDs, Greens and UKIP could still nibble away, taking them down to 20.
That said, if they can make it through 2020 without being totally annihilated, then find a decent new leader, they will surely recover. But without Scotland (which seems permanently lost) a Labour majority is always going to be very hard to achieve, from now on.
Labour won a majority of seats in England and Wales in 1945, 1950, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005 so even without many seats in Scotland with a credible leader they could achieve it
The number of MPs is going to be reduced from 650 to 600 next year, Wales will be hardest hit going from 40 MPs down to 21. With the boundary changes Labour would lose a total of 29 seats, the Tories only 12 based on 2005 results. If Labour can't win in Scotland and the Tories can now win some seats there, Labour might never win a General Election again. I think their floor is about 15%, Corbyn might be ousted in May next year if Labour lose a large number of London council seats.
No, Blair won comfortable majorities in England in 1997, 2001 and 2005 in terms of seats as did Attlee in 1945 and Wilson in 1966
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
He's a Lib Dem - you forswear shame when you join.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
All the experts thought Clegg won that debate didn't they? The kind of people that never admit they're wrong even when proved wrong... and so they lost
(If the experts didn't say Clegg won that debate, I will admit I was wrong!)
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
It's a by election, everybody but the two main contenders are liable to be squeezed. The secret is being one of the two contenders and convincing the electorate that this is the case.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
Compare and contrast Cameron and Clegg - both offering an In/Out referendum that they thought they would never have to deliver.
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
It's a by election, everybody but the two main contenders are liable to be squeezed. The secret is being one of the two contenders and convincing the electorate that this is the case.
If I was running the Tory campaign , I would be putting out leaflets with relevant bar charts showing how close to winning they were the last time Gorton had a by election - '557 votes from victory!'
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
Blair is a europhile with passion and conviction - he doesn't seem to have done much to further the EU's cause. You can't polish a turd. The first chance people got to vote on 50 years of Eurobollocks, they (the sensible ones) voted flush.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
All the experts thought Clegg won that debate didn't they? The kind of people that never admit they're wrong even when proved wrong... and so they lost
(If the experts didn't say Clegg won that debate, I will admit I was wrong!)
That is not my recollection, but someone will dig out the reports I amsure.
I'm not sure I agree 25 is the floor for Labour. Remember this is midterm, when the opposition it at its strongest (stop laughing at the back).
Under the sustained assault of an election campaign, and with Corbyn prone to weird angry outbursts and simple, calamitous errors, alongside the poisonous Labour Left backstory of anti-Semitism, Islamism and Irish terrorism, I can see lifelong Labour voters abstaining, even if they express support now.
Labour could go down to 20, or below.
Remember, Labour once dominated Scotland. They were impregnable. Today they are on ten percent - yes, a subsample, but still. TEN PERCENT. They're dead, north of the border. There is no law that says they must nonetheless survive south of the border.
The lowest that Scottish Labour has sub-sampled at is 6%.
In terms of Labour's core vote, the lowest they polled in an opinion poll was 18%, under Brown, just before the 2009 European elections, in which they polled 15.7%. True, that was a Euro-Election which had a low turnout, boosted the UKIP share because of the issue and other minor party shares because of the voting system, but it still gives an indicator as to where the floor might be.
Interestingly, if, in 2015, you'd taken the highest Conservative score from all of the "final call" polls, married it up with the lowest Labour score from all of them and the average Lib Dem and UKIP scores, you'd have been pretty close. It would have been Con 36, Lab 31, LD 9, UKIP 13 as against Con 37.7, Lab 31.1, LD 8, UKIP 12.9.
Of course, methodologies have changed. But it's striking nonetheless.
IIRC OGH used to have a golden rule that the lowest Labour poll rating was the most accurate.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
I think he will hang on though Simon may lose in West Midlands
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
You are quite right, it should have been a wakeup call for the pro EU side. My thinking is that the Remainers had got so used to remaining silent in order to not scare the horse and letting mission creep achieve their aims, that when it came to cheering on the EU, they’d forgotten all the reasons why they were pro EU.
I'm not sure I agree 25 is the floor for Labour. Remember this is midterm, when the opposition it at its strongest (stop laughing at the back).
Under the sustained assault of Labour could go down to 20, or below.
Remember, Labour once dominated Scotland. They were impregnable. Today they are on ten percent - yes, a subsample, but still. TEN PERCENT. They're dead, north of the border. There is no law that says they must nonetheless survive south of the border.
Someone replaced them north of the border. Despite the suddenness of the end, when it came, the signs were there it might happen. There is no sign of that in England.
Yes, that's the only thing saving them - especially UKIP being so utterly shite. But the LDs, Greens and UKIP could still nibble away, taking them down to 20.
That said, if they can make it through 2020 without being totally annihilated, then find a decent new leader, they will surely recover. But without Scotland (which seems permanently lost) a Labour majority is always going to be very hard to achieve, from now on.
Labour won a majority of seats in England and Wales in 1945, 1950, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005 so even without many seats in Scotland with a credible leader they could achieve it
The number of MPs is going to be reduced from 650 to 600 next year, Wales will be hardest hit going from 40 MPs down to 21. With the boundary changes Labour would lose a total of 29 seats, the Tories only 12 based on 2005 results. If Labour can't win in Scotland and the Tories can now win some seats there, Labour might never win a General Election again. I think their floor is about 15%, Corbyn might be ousted in May next year if Labour lose a large number of London council seats.
No, Blair won comfortable majorities in England in 1997, 2001 and 2005 in terms of seats as did Attlee in 1945 and Wilson in 1966
"The most enjoyable thing about the Nigel-Farage vs Nick Clegg debate was the difference between the reaction to it by the ‘mainstream’ pundits, and the reaction of the public.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
Interestingly, if, in 2015, you'd taken the highest Conservative score from all of the "final call" polls, married it up with the lowest Labour score from all of them and the average Lib Dem and UKIP scores, you'd have been pretty close. It would have been Con 36, Lab 31, LD 9, UKIP 13 as against Con 37.7, Lab 31.1, LD 8, UKIP 12.9.
Of course, methodologies have changed. But it's striking nonetheless.
IIRC OGH used to have a golden rule that the lowest Labour poll rating was the most accurate.
I think he changed his mind following the 2010 election.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
He's a Lib Dem - you forswear shame when you join.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
You are quite right, it should have been a wakeup call for the pro EU side. My thinking is that the Remainers had got so used to remaining silent in order to not scare the horse and letting mission creep achieve their aims, that when it came to cheering on the EU, they’d forgotten all the reasons why they were pro EU.
The EU as a whole has done a poor job of justifying itself, relying on platitudes in the face of technical criticisms of specifics. So when the big arguments came, they came too late.
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
It's a by election, everybody but the two main contenders are liable to be squeezed. The secret is being one of the two contenders and convincing the electorate that this is the case.
If I was running the Tory campaign , I would be putting out leaflets with relevant bar charts showing how close to winning they were the last time Gorton had a by election - '557 votes from victory!'
... in 1967! They would be a laughing stock, but I guess you were joking.
I'm not sure I agree 25 is the floor for Labour. Remember this is midterm, when the opposition it at its strongest (stop laughing at the back).
Under the sustained assault of Labour could go down to 20, or below.
Remember, Labour once dominated Scotland. They were impregnable. Today they are on ten percent - yes, a subsample, but still. TEN PERCENT. They're dead, north of the border. There is no law that says they must nonetheless survive south of the border.
Someone replaced them north of the border. Despite the suddenness of the end, when it came, the signs were there it might happen. There is no sign of that in England.
Yes, that's the only thing saving them - especially UKIP being so utterly shite. But the LDs, Greens and UKIP could still nibble away, taking them down to 20.
That said, if they can make it through 2020 without being totally annihilated, then find a decent new leader, they will surely recover. But without Scotland (which seems permanently lost) a Labour majority is always going to be very hard to achieve, from now on.
Labour won a majority of seats in England and Wales in 1945, 1950, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005 so even without many seats in Scotland with a credible leader they could achieve it
The number of MPs is going to be reduced from 650 to 600 next year, Wales will be hardest hit going from 40 MPs down to 21. With the boundary changes Labour would lose a total of 29 seats, the Tories only 12 based on 2005 results. If Labour can't win in Scotland and the Tories can now win some seats there, Labour might never win a General Election again. I think their floor is about 15%, Corbyn might be ousted in May next year if Labour lose a large number of London council seats.
No, Blair won comfortable majorities in England in 1997, 2001 and 2005 in terms of seats as did Attlee in 1945 and Wilson in 1966
Sorry my mistake, the number of MPs is going to be reduced to 29 in Wales not 21 and it won't be until the first election after 2018 when this is likely to be finally approved.
The only thing that would have helped the EU would have been to have a genuinely patriotic PM who both stood up for the national interest against EU excesses, and was prepared to welcome and exploit concessions when they were offered, such as Juncker offering 'associate membership' for Britain. Sadly (or not sadly depending on your pov) we didn't have that, we had a lazy, complacent, arch-insider, whose aim was to shackle Britain permanently to the EU on the worst possible terms, and thought he could get away with it.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
All the experts thought Clegg won that debate didn't they? The kind of people that never admit they're wrong even when proved wrong... and so they lost
(If the experts didn't say Clegg won that debate, I will admit I was wrong!)
That is not my recollection, but someone will dig out the reports I amsure.
They did say Clegg had won.. then a poll came out showing Farage won quite easily according to the public
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
All the experts thought Clegg won that debate didn't they? The kind of people that never admit they're wrong even when proved wrong... and so they lost
(If the experts didn't say Clegg won that debate, I will admit I was wrong!)
That is not my recollection, but someone will dig out the reports I amsure.
They did say Clegg had won.. then a poll came out showing Farage won quite easily according to the public
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
It's a by election, everybody but the two main contenders are liable to be squeezed. The secret is being one of the two contenders and convincing the electorate that this is the case.
If I was running the Tory campaign , I would be putting out leaflets with relevant bar charts showing how close to winning they were the last time Gorton had a by election - '557 votes from victory!'
If I was running the Tory campaign in Gorton I would be delivering leaflets for Corbyn Labour!
I'm not sure I agree 25 is the floor for Labour. Remember this is midterm, when the opposition it at its strongest (stop laughing at the back).
Under the sustained assault of Labour could go down to 20, or below.
Remember, Labour once dominated Scotland. They were impregnable. Today they are on ten percent - yes, a subsample, but still. TEN PERCENT. They're dead, north of the border. There is no law that says they must nonetheless survive south of the border.
Someone replaced them north of the border. Despite the suddenness of the end, when it came, the signs were there it might happen. There is no sign of that in England.
Yes, that's the only thing saving them - especially UKIP being so utterly shite. But the LDs, Greens and UKIP could still nibble away, taking them down to 20.
That said, if they can make it through 2020 without being totally annihilated, then find a decent new leader, they will surely recover. But without Scotland (which seems permanently lost) a Labour majority is always going to be very hard to achieve, from now on.
Labour won a majority of seats in England and Wales in 1945, 1950, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005 so even without many seats in Scotland with a credible leader they could achieve it
The number of MPs is going to be reduced from 650 to 600 next year, Wales will be hardest hit going from 40 MPs down to 21. With the boundary changes Labour would lose a total of 29 seats, the Tories only 12 based on 2005 results. If Labour can't win in Scotland and the Tories can now win some seats there, Labour might never win a General Election again. I think their floor is about 15%, Corbyn might be ousted in May next year if Labour lose a large number of London council seats.
No, Blair won comfortable majorities in England in 1997, 2001 and 2005 in terms of seats as did Attlee in 1945 and Wilson in 1966
Sorry my mistake, the number of MPs is going to be reduced to 29 in Wales not 21 and it won't be until the first election after 2018 when this is likely to be finally approved.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
You are quite right, it should have been a wakeup call for the pro EU side. My thinking is that the Remainers had got so used to remaining silent in order to not scare the horse and letting mission creep achieve their aims, that when it came to cheering on the EU, they’d forgotten all the reasons why they were pro EU.
They hadn't forgotten the reasons - the reasons were unsayable. Namely that most relied upon EU patronage in some form. They were happy with the proles taxes going to the EU, then raining back down on their committee, charity, quango, etc. like manna from heaven. Many hoped for a lucrative second career in Brussels. These aren't things you can say in a referendum.
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
It's a by election, everybody but the two main contenders are liable to be squeezed. The secret is being one of the two contenders and convincing the electorate that this is the case.
If I was running the Tory campaign , I would be putting out leaflets with relevant bar charts showing how close to winning they were the last time Gorton had a by election - '557 votes from victory!'
... in 1967! They would be a laughing stock, but I guess you were joking.
I was not being entirely serious but it is the kind of tactic I could imagine the LibDems trying!
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
All the experts thought Clegg won that debate didn't they? The kind of people that never admit they're wrong even when proved wrong... and so they lost
(If the experts didn't say Clegg won that debate, I will admit I was wrong!)
That is not my recollection, but someone will dig out the reports I amsure.
They did say Clegg had won.. then a poll came out showing Farage won quite easily according to the public
It was also the beginning of the end for UKIP I believe, as that and the EU elections that followed led to those in authority waking up to the UKIP threat. The campaign of vilification that followed in the GE and since was truly terrible and not something any party could easily recover from. Farage and UKIP for their part have started to enjoy their pariah status and be deliberately outrageous. So those debates with Clegg were peak UKIP respectability and viability.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
I think he will hang on though Simon may lose in West Midlands
If Labour had been taken over by the Militant Tendency, even they would attract more support than the Corbynistas, not because they are better or the Corbynistas are nasty. But because they were not as utterly incompetent as the Corbynistas.
We are told that it is the time of anti-politician. Corbyn could hardly claim that as he has been an MP since 1983. He is simply useless at this game.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
But they will lose Gorton.
and Labour have no chance in the West Of England mayoral contest
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project the EEC (initially) was keen on - it was a stated objective before Britain joined - but it had been kicked into the long grass for while over a decade before Delors resurrected it. It's also true that Mitterrand and Kohl were keen on the Euro due to what they perceived as the consequences of the end of the Cold War and of German reunification. But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
It's a by election, everybody but the two main contenders are liable to be squeezed. The secret is being one of the two contenders and convincing the electorate that this is the case.
If I was running the Tory campaign , I would be putting out leaflets with relevant bar charts showing how close to winning they were the last time Gorton had a by election - '557 votes from victory!'
If I was running the Tory campaign in Gorton I would be delivering leaflets for Corbyn Labour!
Delivering leaflets for the Conservatives would be sufficient. Keeping tactical votes away from the Lib Dems should see Labour home.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project the EEC (initially) was keen on - it was a stated objective before Britain joined - but it had been kicked into the long grass for while over a decade before Delors resurrected it. It's also true that Mitterrand and Kohl were keen on the Euro due to what they perceived as the consequences of the end of the Cold War and of German reunification. But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
Provided free movement was not a cornerstone of the single market as now
The LibDem claim implies that the Tories , Greens, UKIP and Galloway will only manage15% - 18% in total. How likely is that?
In Richmond LibDem/Zac got 95% of the vote between them.
... and in Newbury 1993, it was 92% between the LibDems/Tories. So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead. All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
But given that the Greens were runners up in 2015 and that the Tories have come close to winning in the more distant past, how likely are they to end up with 5 or 6% each?
It's a by election, everybody but the two main contenders are liable to be squeezed. The secret is being one of the two contenders and convincing the electorate that this is the case.
If I was running the Tory campaign , I would be putting out leaflets with relevant bar charts showing how close to winning they were the last time Gorton had a by election - '557 votes from victory!'
If I was running the Tory campaign in Gorton I would be delivering leaflets for Corbyn Labour!
Delivering leaflets for the Conservatives would be sufficient. Keeping tactical votes away from the Lib Dems should see Labour home.
You could do that in the middle class areas and deliver for Labour in the working class and Muslim areas
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project the EEC (initially) was keen on - it was a stated objective before Britain joined - but it had been kicked into the long grass for while over a decade before Delors resurrected it. It's also true that Mitterrand and Kohl were keen on the Euro due to what they perceived as the consequences of the end of the Cold War and of German reunification. But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
We don't have an alternative history to judge but I think that if there had been no Eurozone at the time of the 2008 crisis, the idea would have been resurrected at that point as a way of shielding the likes of Greece from being attacked by currency speculators.
One thing that struck me on the... Could referendum have been different?... question....
You look at people like Carswell, Hannnan, Farage.... They've basically dedicated their lives to getting Britain out of the UK. They've spent decades arguing on this. Practicing. No one on the remain side has comparable experience.
There's a video of Farage making a speech back in 2005 on the EU to Blair (arguably the most talented political communicator of our time)
And Blair's reply is so dismissive... He clearly sees Farage as an evolutionary throwback - not even worth engaging with the argument... I think that complacency did hurt Remain.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
But they will lose Gorton.
Not on tonight's poll they won't
With Opinium Labour would win most of the Mayoralty contests.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
But they will lose Gorton.
Not on tonight's poll they won't
With Opinium Labour would win most of the Mayoralty contests.
I was referring to the LD 'poll' of Gorton which still had Labour 20% ahead
I see that Lib Dem commentator Mark Pack is suggesting the Yellows may be getting an even bigger swing from Labour than they did in Witney. He's been up there and is calling on activists to head up there...sounds like there may be some value in the 6/1 on offer
The only thing that would have helped the EU would have been to have a genuinely patriotic PM who both stood up for the national interest against EU excesses, and was prepared to welcome and exploit concessions when they were offered, such as Juncker offering 'associate membership' for Britain. Sadly (or not sadly depending on your pov) we didn't have that, we had a lazy, complacent, arch-insider, whose aim was to shackle Britain permanently to the EU on the worst possible terms, and thought he could get away with it.
The only thing that would have helped the EU would have been to have a genuinely patriotic PM who both stood up for the national interest against EU excesses, and was prepared to welcome and exploit concessions when they were offered, such as Juncker offering 'associate membership' for Britain. Sadly (or not sadly depending on your pov) we didn't have that, we had a lazy, complacent, arch-insider, whose aim was to shackle Britain permanently to the EU on the worst possible terms, and thought he could get away with it.
When Cameron went to the EU early last year and asked for a few puny concessions that didn't nearly go far enough anyway and he was more or less told to F-Off I personally felt humiliated and angry, but then he came back and announced he was going to campaign for Remain, the man must have absolutely no self respect. In the campaign all the Remain side could offer were scare tactics, nobody could say why the EU was so good that we must stay in it and what great things it was going to do for us in the future if we stayed in. None of the leaders of the EU appeared concerned either, one would have thought that as we were the second or third largest member, Junker, Tusk and the like would be on our TV saying 'look don't vote to leave, we hear what you say and if you vote to remain, we'll try to get things changed and stop doing this and that which you don't like and start doing XYZ in the future' But nope they hardly said a word, only piping up when Boris compared them to the Nazis which leads me to conclude that most of the EU wanted us out anyway and the there was no point us staying in the club.
One thing that struck me on the... Could referendum have been different?... question....
You look at people like Carswell, Hannnan, Farage.... They've basically dedicated their lives to getting Britain out of the UK. They've spent decades arguing on this. Practicing. No one on the remain side has comparable experience.
There's a video of Farage making a speech back in 2005 on the EU to Blair (arguably the most talented political communicator of our time)
And Blair's reply is so dismissive... He clearly sees Farage as an evolutionary throwback - not even worth engaging with the argument... I think that complacency did hurt Remain.
And the reason the die-hard Remainers still have a fighting chance of turning things around is that there's a now similar complacency on the other side. They're used to arguing with people who evade the issues and obfuscate instead of taking them head on without apology.
The crucial question is how the great mass of Euro-agnostic voters will perceive developments over the next 18 months.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
But they will lose Gorton.
Not on tonight's poll they won't
With Opinium Labour would win most of the Mayoralty contests.
I was referring to the LD 'poll' of Gorton which still had Labour 20% ahead
The only thing that would have helped the EU would have been to have a genuinely patriotic PM who both stood up for the national interest against EU excesses, and was prepared to welcome and exploit concessions when they were offered, such as Juncker offering 'associate membership' for Britain. Sadly (or not sadly depending on your pov) we didn't have that, we had a lazy, complacent, arch-insider, whose aim was to shackle Britain permanently to the EU on the worst possible terms, and thought he could get away with it.
The only thing that would have helped the EU would have been to have a genuinely patriotic PM who both stood up for the national interest against EU excesses, and was prepared to welcome and exploit concessions when they were offered, such as Juncker offering 'associate membership' for Britain. Sadly (or not sadly depending on your pov) we didn't have that, we had a lazy, complacent, arch-insider, whose aim was to shackle Britain permanently to the EU on the worst possible terms, and thought he could get away with it.
When Cameron went to the EU early last year and asked for a few puny concessions that didn't nearly go far enough anyway and he was more or less told to F-Off I personally felt humiliated and angry, but then he came back and announced he was going to campaign for Remain, the man must have absolutely no self respect. In the campaign all the Remain side could offer were scare tactics, nobody could say why the EU was so good that we must stay in it and what great things it was going to do for us in the future if we stayed in. None of the leaders of the EU appeared concerned either, one would have thought that as we were the second or third largest member, Junker, Tusk and the like would be on our TV saying 'look don't vote to leave, we hear what you say and if you vote to remain, we'll try to get things changed and stop doing this and that which you don't like and start doing XYZ in the future' But nope they hardly said a word, only piping up when Boris compared them to the Nazis which leads me to conclude that most of the EU wanted us out anyway and the there was no point us staying in the club.
I'm not sure any of them even considered that Leave would win.
"Inconceivable" was their cry.
Well pride comes before a fall. And arrogance comes before a shellacking.
When Cameron went to the EU early last year and asked for a few puny concessions that didn't nearly go far enough anyway and he was more or less told to F-Off I personally felt humiliated and angry...
That highlights perfectly Cameron's huge presentational failing in the run-up to the referendum. He thought the charade of pretending to renegotiate would get people on his side but instead he just insulted their intelligence.
Sadly I believe the humiliation and anger will be magnified many times over when the EU is similarly unmoved by our demands for an exit deal all on our terms so we can continue to buy their BMWs and prosecco...
If association with Corbyn appears to have little impact, there's little point in changing the party leader, looks as though it is the Labour brand that's tarnished.
Agreed. Labour are very lucky that UKIP is now in a worse state than they are, and so unable to capitilise on their decline while memories of the Libdems in Coalition with the Tories remain fresh in voters minds.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
But they will lose Gorton.
Not on tonight's poll they won't
With Opinium Labour would win most of the Mayoralty contests.
I was referring to the LD 'poll' of Gorton which still had Labour 20% ahead
Oh ! Labour will lose Gorton. Guaranteed.
Labour on 51% the LDs on 31% is not a sign Labour will lose Gorton even if its majority falls
When Cameron went to the EU early last year and asked for a few puny concessions that didn't nearly go far enough anyway and he was more or less told to F-Off I personally felt humiliated and angry...
That highlights perfectly Cameron's huge presentational failing in the run-up to the referendum. He thought the charade of pretending to renegotiate would get people on his side but instead he just insulted their intelligence.
Sadly I believe the humiliation and anger will be magnified many times over when the EU is similarly unmoved by our demands for an exit deal all on our terms so we can continue to buy their BMWs and prosecco...
They will wake up when they find that the EU is not budging on the single market. Our Leave liars kept on telling their electorate that with the trade deficit and what not the EU will have no choice but give us non tariff entry.
Bollocks, they will. How many BMW cars will not be sold here even with a 10% tariff. I will still buy it.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project the EEC (initially) was keen on - it was a stated objective before Britain joined - but it had been kicked into the long grass for while over a decade before Delors resurrected it. It's also true that Mitterrand and Kohl were keen on the Euro due to what they perceived as the consequences of the end of the Cold War and of German reunification. But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
We don't have an alternative history to judge but I think that if there had been no Eurozone at the time of the 2008 crisis, the idea would have been resurrected at that point as a way of shielding the likes of Greece from being attacked by currency speculators.
Here was I thinking Greece needed to devalue......
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project the EEC (initially) was keen on - it was a stated objective before Britain joined - but it had been kicked into the long grass for while over a decade before Delors resurrected it. It's also true that Mitterrand and Kohl were keen on the Euro due to what they perceived as the consequences of the end of the Cold War and of German reunification. But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
We don't have an alternative history to judge but I think that if there had been no Eurozone at the time of the 2008 crisis, the idea would have been resurrected at that point as a way of shielding the likes of Greece from being attacked by currency speculators.
Here was I thinking Greece needed to devalue......
Devaluation is no answer . The UK has been devaluing the £ for 70 years without success .
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project the EEC (initially) was keen on - it was a stated objective before Britain joined - but it had been kicked into the long grass for while over a decade before Delors resurrected it. It's also true that Mitterrand and Kohl were keen on the Euro due to what they perceived as the consequences of the end of the Cold War and of German reunification. But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
Provided free movement was not a cornerstone of the single market as now
Free movement has always been a cornerstone, ever since 1958. But I take your point. Even so, I don't think that large-scale immigration from E Europe would have been enough by itself.
When Cameron went to the EU early last year and asked for a few puny concessions that didn't nearly go far enough anyway and he was more or less told to F-Off I personally felt humiliated and angry...
That highlights perfectly Cameron's huge presentational failing in the run-up to the referendum. He thought the charade of pretending to renegotiate would get people on his side but instead he just insulted their intelligence.
Sadly I believe the humiliation and anger will be magnified many times over when the EU is similarly unmoved by our demands for an exit deal all on our terms so we can continue to buy their BMWs and prosecco...
They will wake up when they find that the EU is not budging on the single market. Our Leave liars kept on telling their electorate that with the trade deficit and what not the EU will have no choice but give us non tariff entry.
Bollocks, they will. How many BMW cars will not be sold here even with a 10% tariff. I will still buy it.
We should start manufacturing good quality cars over here and exporting them where we can and tell the Germans we don't want their cars thanks and tell the Italians we don't want that over rated fizzy crap. Plenty of other alcoholic drinks are available, bring back Babycham.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project (snip). But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
We don't have an alternative history to judge but I think that if there had been no Eurozone at the time of the 2008 crisis, the idea would have been resurrected at that point as a way of shielding the likes of Greece from being attacked by currency speculators.
Here was I thinking Greece needed to devalue......
Devaluation is no answer . The UK has been devaluing the £ for 70 years without success .
Sorry Mark, you are the last person I would listen to on Economics.
Hell, you missed the mother of all recessions if I recall.
When Cameron went to the EU early last year and asked for a few puny concessions that didn't nearly go far enough anyway and he was more or less told to F-Off I personally felt humiliated and angry...
That highlights perfectly Cameron's huge presentational failing in the run-up to the referendum. He thought the charade of pretending to renegotiate would get people on his side but instead he just insulted their intelligence.
Sadly I believe the humiliation and anger will be magnified many times over when the EU is similarly unmoved by our demands for an exit deal all on our terms so we can continue to buy their BMWs and prosecco...
They will wake up when they find that the EU is not budging on the single market. Our Leave liars kept on telling their electorate that with the trade deficit and what not the EU will have no choice but give us non tariff entry.
Bollocks, they will. How many BMW cars will not be sold here even with a 10% tariff. I will still buy it.
It was not BMW owners who voted Leave on the whole but lower middle class and working class voters who wanted to regain sovereignty and end free movement
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project the EEC (initially) was keen on - it was a stated objective before Britain joined - but it had been kicked into the long grass for while over a decade before Delors resurrected it. It's also true that Mitterrand and Kohl were keen on the Euro due to what they perceived as the consequences of the end of the Cold War and of German reunification. But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
Provided free movement was not a cornerstone of the single market as now
Free movement has always been a cornerstone, ever since 1958. But I take your point. Even so, I don't think that large-scale immigration from E Europe would have been enough by itself.
It was that immigration from Eastern Europe which took Leave over the line, especially after Blair failed to impose any transition controls
It was not BMW owners who voted Leave on the whole but lower middle class and working class voters who wanted to regain sovereignty and end free movement
And to them sovereignty is largely perceived through the prism of national pride. Having it made brutally clear that the UK doesn't have much leverage strikes at the heart of that feeling.
It would be very similar to 2010, one wild extrapolation from this; If Labour support across GM has roughly declined ~6 percentage points to the 40% they got in 2010 under Brown, then Burnham is theoretically beatable.
A point I made in this morning's piece: that while Gtr Manchester ought to be Labour's (and even on these numbers, it still should be), it might be far too close for Labour's comfort given that it's supposed to be a core area.
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
I don't think outside Cambridgeshire Labour would lose any Mayoral contests including West Midlands.
But they will lose Gorton.
Not on tonight's poll they won't
With Opinium Labour would win most of the Mayoralty contests.
I was referring to the LD 'poll' of Gorton which still had Labour 20% ahead
Oh ! Labour will lose Gorton. Guaranteed.
Labour on 51% the LDs on 31% is not a sign Labour will lose Gorton even if its majority falls
At this stage the LibDems simply need to be the clear challengers. The poll figures are otherwise unimportant. With luck they will have some artwork on file with two horses in it.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project (snip). But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
We don't have an alternative history to judge but I think that if there had been no Eurozone at the time of the 2008 crisis, the idea would have been resurrected at that point as a way of shielding the likes of Greece from being attacked by currency speculators.
Here was I thinking Greece needed to devalue......
Devaluation is no answer . The UK has been devaluing the £ for 70 years without success .
Sorry Mark, you are the last person I would listen to on Economics.
Hell, you missed the mother of all recessions if I recall.
Looks like the Tories might be favourites to win the mayoralty in the West Midlands. Burnham should be okay in Greater Manchester though.
As SO and I have been saying for months, Labour will not win in the West Midlands with the current Labour leadership. Many voters will not forgive the past of Corbo and McMao.
What a cocksucker Clegg is. Leader of the party which proudly promised an in/out referendum it knew it would never have to deliver, because they would never win. Then, when just such a referendum was offered, it was suddenly a loathsome error and morally wrong?
He is the most odious hypocrite. He should leave politics in shame.
You could make a case that the real turning point that led to Brexit was that debate he did with Farage in 2014 in which his approach was found wanting. That should have been a wake up call that mealy-mouthed platitudes wouldn't cut it and the pro-Europeans needed some passion and conviction.
That might have been a strong clue but it really just revealed a reality that went back years. Yes, pro-Europeans should have been making a more positive case but I doubt that even that would have worked.
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
And I give you 1 January 1973 Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
No, I don't think it was inevitable. There was no inevitability about Delors embarking on either the social programme or the single currency. Sure, the single currency had long been a project (snip). But again, would it have happened without Delors' guiding hand (and Delors was the exception - no other EU Commission president has gained such power)?
years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
We don't have an alternative history to judge but I think that if there had been no Eurozone at the time of the 2008 crisis, the idea would have been resurrected at that point as a way of shielding the likes of Greece from being attacked by currency speculators.
Here was I thinking Greece needed to devalue......
Devaluation is no answer . The UK has been devaluing the £ for 70 years without success .
Sorry Mark, you are the last person I would listen to on Economics.
Hell, you missed the mother of all recessions if I recall.
Greece needed to devalue, they can't.
Then they were sacrificed to save German banks.
That's your EU in a nutshell.
That is your EU in the nutshell that is your head
No, this is me in a nutshell: "Help, I'm in a nutshell!"
Labour won a majority of seats in England and Wales in 1945, 1950, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005 so even without many seats in Scotland with a credible leader they could achieve it
Point of pedantry, but they were just short of a majority in October 1974. 283 were needed for a majority in E&W, they had 278, just ahead of the Tories on 271. That would probably not have been quite enough to let them form a government.
Comments
So 15% to 18% for everybody else would be possible for a by election.
More to the point the LibDem claim shows Labour still 20% ahead.
All those who want Corbyn gone should hope that they can overcome that gap, surely (?) he couldn't survive the loss of Gorton?
That's 5%.
5% of 600 gives it about 30 seats, surely?
(If the experts didn't say Clegg won that debate, I will admit I was wrong!)
Lab 38
Con 30
UKIP 15
LibD 8
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention
If you want a date for when the Brexit process began, I give you 8 September 1988.
In terms of Labour's core vote, the lowest they polled in an opinion poll was 18%, under Brown, just before the 2009 European elections, in which they polled 15.7%. True, that was a Euro-Election which had a low turnout, boosted the UKIP share because of the issue and other minor party shares because of the voting system, but it still gives an indicator as to where the floor might be.
Leaving was inevitable. It was just the timing.
As the Guardian’s Rowena Mason reports here http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/26/nigel-farage-victory-snap-poll-surprises-political-insiders , these insiders were surprisedt o find that a snap poll handed the debate to Mr Farage by 57% to 36%."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/03/some-thoughts-on-the-great-debate-clegg-vs-farage.html
And if Manchester was squeaky bum time then all the rest of the mayoral contests bar Liverpool and probably Doncaster would be lost.
They would be a laughing stock, but I guess you were joking.
One day Britain will recognise Cameron for the amazing difference he had made to this country:
Brexit.
Massive Tory leads.
Annihilating the LibDems.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/communicate
So there's still some scope for Corbyn yet.
I wonder where Labour are doing better now than in 2009 - London, Merseyside and Manchester I'd say but anywhere else ?
We are told that it is the time of anti-politician. Corbyn could hardly claim that as he has been an MP since 1983. He is simply useless at this game.
But they will lose Gorton.
Putt your ball in the hole... and make it snappy.
Had the EC decided that the Single Market was the limit of its realistic ambitions, whatever the treaties might say, then Britain would still be a member. And given that it took 40 years just to complete most of the Single Market - a process that still isn't complete in some sectors - that's far from unrealistic.
Just because many Labour seats voted Leave, it does not follow that the majority of Labour voters in those seats voted Leave.
You look at people like Carswell, Hannnan, Farage.... They've basically dedicated their lives to getting Britain out of the UK. They've spent decades arguing on this. Practicing. No one on the remain side has comparable experience.
There's a video of Farage making a speech back in 2005 on the EU to Blair (arguably the most talented political communicator of our time)
And Blair's reply is so dismissive... He clearly sees Farage as an evolutionary throwback - not even worth engaging with the argument... I think that complacency did hurt Remain.
In the campaign all the Remain side could offer were scare tactics, nobody could say why the EU was so good that we must stay in it and what great things it was going to do for us in the future if we stayed in.
None of the leaders of the EU appeared concerned either, one would have thought that as we were the second or third largest member, Junker, Tusk and the like would be on our TV saying 'look don't vote to leave, we hear what you say and if you vote to remain, we'll try to get things changed and stop doing this and that which you don't like and start doing XYZ in the future'
But nope they hardly said a word, only piping up when Boris compared them to the Nazis which leads me to conclude that most of the EU wanted us out anyway and the there was no point us staying in the club.
The crucial question is how the great mass of Euro-agnostic voters will perceive developments over the next 18 months.
Before reweighting the Tories lead 38-27.
I'm not sure any of them even considered that Leave would win.
"Inconceivable" was their cry.
Well pride comes before a fall. And arrogance comes before a shellacking.
Opinium: SNP 48 Con 30 Lab 10 LD 4
Comres: SNP 43 Con 24 Lab 15 LD 7
Sadly I believe the humiliation and anger will be magnified many times over when the EU is similarly unmoved by our demands for an exit deal all on our terms so we can continue to buy their BMWs and prosecco...
Bollocks, they will. How many BMW cars will not be sold here even with a 10% tariff. I will still buy it.
https://twitter.com/EquusontheBuses/status/853334019060228097
Hell, you missed the mother of all recessions if I recall.
Greece needed to devalue, they can't.
Then they were sacrificed to save German banks.
That's your EU in a nutshell.
Good evening, everyone.
Opinium are the new gold standard.