The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
I remember a fair amount of scorn and derision being directed at Crick when these investigations first started. I think it is worth recognising what a great service he has done the country in exposing these practices.
I was at a political nerd seminar a few days ago someone observed
'In America, they have checks & balances and separation of powers, in the U.K., we have Michael Crick'
I was saying that before the last election we heard interminably about Labour's ground game and the personal votes built on local activism of various Lib Dem MPs. In the end neither mattered a damn. I don't know of any reason why volunteers charging around in a bus in areas they don't even know should be more effective. I very much doubt this excess or undeclared (since in many cases the spending would not have put the candidate above the limits) had much impact at all.
So all this effort by the Tories produced nothing. Would the Tories have won Thanet South if Nick Timothy and his team not been holed up in the smart Ramsgate hotel for weeks? He was certainly given the accolades afterwards.
I know you are a loyal Tory but really.
What evidence do you have that it did? Certainly, and beyond doubt the intention to make a difference was there. But that does not mean that it did nor that the results are therefore distorted and not a proper basis for assessment in 2017 which I think was your point.
Of course whether they were successful or not is an entirely different question from whether criminal offences were committed. There is absolutely no need for the CPS to show the expenditure made a difference. Which might be just as well.
Then why do it ? Are you guys so inefficient that you bus in people , put them up in swanky hotels for no effect ?
With all dew respect to Mr Smithson, I don't think this will be a factor, at least not in the way he discuses it, for the simple reason that most if not all of the 2015 Target seats, will be safe Conservatives seats this time. (outside Scotland that is)
An entirely valid point. This election will be fought, not wholly but largely, around a different set of marginals to the last one. Certainly, in terms of Conservative defences, if you make the crude assumption that about half of the Ukip vote in each seat will defect, then there are only two sitting Tory MPs starting with majorities of less than 5% (David Mundell in Dumfriesshire and Gavin Barwell in Croydon Central.) In fact, we can probably assume that virtually all of the Tory MPs are safe, save for a small handful - principally those facing Liberal Democrat challengers - in Remain-leaning areas.
The swings that are likely to come into play are mainly in Labour's defences, and most of the tight ones that the Tories missed out on last time can, and in many cases will, fall given Ukip defections alone, before the Conservatives even have to try to convert any other new voters. The maths of this electoral map is entirely different from 2015.
Relative to the wider movements of voters between the parties, any difference made by campaign overspend in the last election is likely to be negligible.
(FWIW I don't think that there will be CPS announcements this side of June 8th either. These lawyers aren't thick, and presumably they won't want to find themselves caught in a similar kind of shitstorm to that which they will have seen engulf James Comey and the FBI in the States last Autumn.)
But failure to make an announcement could also be seen as political interference.It would seem highly suspicious if a few days following the election the CPS makes it clear that some Tory candidates /agents are to be prosecuted. Accusations of pro-Tory collusion would be heard.
Macron leads 64% to 36% with under 35s but by a narrower 57% to 43% with over 35s
Not that much narrower. Enthusiasm for Macron gives way to dislike of Le Pen.
It is a contrast to the first round though where Le Pen led Macron with 18 to 24s, in the runoff Macron has his biggest lead with 18 to 24s (a group won in the first round by Melenchon), as 18 to 24s are least likely to vote that suggests the final runoff margin could be slightly tighter than polls suggest
The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I do wonder if they are of the misguided opinion that by making their comments in the way they have that opinion in the UK is likely to force Theresa May to surrender to them
They do not know this Country or Theresa May. Also reports from France that Macron is getting worried as Le Pen closes on him. He is calling for wide scale EU reform and does look a bit worried.
The French election is only going to add to the EU problems no matter the result.
Just one last point. If Juncker thinks the way to intimidate the Brits is by threatening them, he really ought to read a bit more history.
I suspect the reasons for the kerfuffle are a mix of a) Juncker was drunker than usual b) May isn't a very good negotiator possibly c) errors in translation.
However, Barnier, a Frenchman, sums up most of the reasons that the EU is the way it is today. France was the only large founding member with any standing and wrote most of the rules. Timmermanns and Verhofstadt, i.e., a Dutchman and a Belgian, would be a better EU double act.
In certain to vote they have SNP 39, SCon 25, SLab 18. I seem to detect a slight SLab uptick lately, perhaps a reversion to reflex when a big majority Tory government hoves into view?
Is this a genuine poll from Google? Or one of those survey type ad things Google do where when you hit on a website you have to fill in the survey before you can read the page content?
I don't think their polls are as per BPC. However, with the amount of data they have, I would not be surprised that they would be in an excellent position to draw up a very representative sample.
On topic, Mike, the Tories overspent in the Rochester & Strood and Clacton by-elections in 2014 and still lost.
Money isn't everything.
As someone who campaigned in a few marginals in 2015 it was all about Dave's leadership, George's magnificent stewardship of the economy, and The SNP/Lab coalition.
In certain to vote they have SNP 39, SCon 25, SLab 18. I seem to detect a slight SLab uptick lately, perhaps a reversion to reflex when a big majority Tory government hovers into view?
You are not the only one. The last few have shown that. Excellent canvassing strategy:
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
With all dew respect to Mr Smithson, I don't think this will be a factor, at least not in the way he discuses it, for the simple reason that most if not all of the 2015 Target seats, will be safe Conservatives seats this time. (outside Scotland that is)
An entirely valid point. This election will be fought, not wholly but largely, around a different set of marginals to the last one. Certainly, in terms of Conservative defences, if you make the crude assumption that about half of the Ukip vote in each seat will defect, then there are only two sitting Tory MPs starting with majorities of less than 5% (David Mundell in Dumfriesshire and Gavin Barwell in Croydon Central.) In fact, we can probably assume that virtually all of the Tory MPs are safe, save for a small handful - principally those facing Liberal Democrat challengers - in Remain-leaning areas.
The swings that are likely to come into play are mainly in Labour's defences, and most of the tight ones that the Tories missed out on last time can, and in many cases will, fall given Ukip defections alone, before the Conservatives even have to try to convert any other new voters. The maths of this electoral map is entirely different from 2015.
Relative to the wider movements of voters between the parties, any difference made by campaign overspend in the last election is likely to be negligible.
(FWIW I don't think that there will be CPS announcements this side of June 8th either. These lawyers aren't thick, and presumably they won't want to find themselves caught in a similar kind of shitstorm to that which they will have seen engulf James Comey and the FBI in the States last Autumn.)
But failure to make an announcement could also be seen as political interference.It would seem highly suspicious if a few days following the election the CPS makes it clear that some Tory candidates /agents are to be prosecuted. Accusations of pro-Tory collusion would be heard.
I thought the time limit on charges for the 2015 election was end of may, so charges by then or not at all.
With all dew respect to Mr Smithson, I don't think this will be a factor, at least not in the way he discuses it, for the simple reason that most if not all of the 2015 Target seats, will be safe Conservatives seats this time. (outside Scotland that is)
An entirely valid point. This election will be fought, not wholly but largely, around a different set of marginals to the last one. Certainly, in terms of Conservative defences, if you make the crude assumption that about half of the Ukip vote in each seat will defect, then there are only two sitting Tory MPs starting with majorities of less than 5% (David Mundell in Dumfriesshire and Gavin Barwell in Croydon Central.) In fact, we can probably assume that virtually all of the Tory MPs are safe, save for a small handful - principally those facing Liberal Democrat challengers - in Remain-leaning areas.
The swings that are likely to come into play are mainly in Labour's defences, and most of the tight ones that the Tories missed out on last time can, and in many cases will, fall given Ukip defections alone, before the Conservatives even have to try to convert any other new voters. The maths of this electoral map is entirely different from 2015.
Relative to the wider movements of voters between the parties, any difference made by campaign overspend in the last election is likely to be negligible.
(FWIW I don't think that there will be CPS announcements this side of June 8th either. These lawyers aren't thick, and presumably they won't want to find themselves caught in a similar kind of shitstorm to that which they will have seen engulf James Comey and the FBI in the States last Autumn.)
But failure to make an announcement could also be seen as political interference.It would seem highly suspicious if a few days following the election the CPS makes it clear that some Tory candidates /agents are to be prosecuted. Accusations of pro-Tory collusion would be heard.
The law in this Country is that you are innocent until proven guilty. I would suggest the minute any announcement is made and if it is made, the CPS will remind the media and press that the matter immediately becomes sub judice
Is this a genuine poll from Google? Or one of those survey type ad things Google do where when you hit on a website you have to fill in the survey before you can read the page content?
There's a question with enormous salience.
We know about voodoo polls: polls at the bottom of articles saying "What do you think about this? Vote NOW!!!", which are open to self-selection abuse and multiple voting and rightly decried.
We know about online opt-in panel polls such as YouGov, where people opt-in to a panel and responses are weighted to the general population. This is good but has disadvantages, the main one being politically-engaged folk opt-in in too many numbers and demographic weighting not curing the subsequent bias, a problem YouGov are committed to trying to solve.
But there are also ones in the middle. ComRes augments its panel with popup polls, and I think (not sure here) SurveyMonkey does as well.
The line is becoming increasingly blurred. Following GE2015 and EU2016, telephone panels are dead in the water and online are the only game in town. How they will develop over the next ten years will be very interesting...in the Chinese sense.
“Let us make Brexit a success,” May is said to have beseeched the commission president. According to the German newspaper, Juncker said while he wanted an orderly exit, not chaos, after Britain withdraws from the EU in 2019, it would be a third country state for the EU, adding: “Brexit cannot be a success.”
I see the North Korea Leave faction is strong today.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
No
Juncker called Merkel because he was astonished at what he heard at dinner. May apparently really believes some of the bullshit she has been spreading.
It would have been more surprising had he not called.
"We want to make Brexit a success" is akin to someone who decides to chop off a perfectly good finger and then hopes the injury heals well !
The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
- ditto "Brexit cannot be a success" - was Juncker drinking when he said that?).
With all dew respect to Mr Smithson, I don't think this will be a factor, at least not in the way he discuses it, for the simple reason that most if not all of the 2015 Target seats, will be safe Conservatives seats this time. (outside Scotland that is)
An entirely valid point. This election will be fought, not wholly but largely, around a different set of marginals to the last one. Certainly, in terms of Conservative defences, if you make the crude assumption that about half of the Ukip vote in each seat will defect, then there are only two sitting Tory MPs starting with majorities of less than 5% (David Mundell in Dumfriesshire and Gavin Barwell in Croydon Central.) In fact, we can probably assume that virtually all of the Tory MPs are safe, save for a small handful - principally those facing Liberal Democrat challengers - in Remain-leaning areas.
The swings that are likely to come into play are mainly in Labour's defences, and most of the tight ones that the Tories missed out on last time can, and in many cases will, fall given Ukip defections alone, before the Conservatives even have to try to convert any other new voters. The maths of this electoral map is entirely different from 2015.
Relative to the wider movements of voters between the parties, any difference made by campaign overspend in the last election is likely to be negligible.
(FWIW I don't think that there will be CPS announcements this side of June 8th either. These lawyers aren't thick, and presumably they won't want to find themselves caught in a similar kind of shitstorm to that which they will have seen engulf James Comey and the FBI in the States last Autumn.)
But failure to make an announcement could also be seen as political interference.It would seem highly suspicious if a few days following the election the CPS makes it clear that some Tory candidates /agents are to be prosecuted. Accusations of pro-Tory collusion would be heard.
I thought the time limit on charges for the 2015 election was end of may, so charges by then or not at all.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I see the North Korea Leave faction is strong today.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
"Thus we cannot now say with certainty that seat X requires a swing of Y% because the base figure, the GE2015 result, could have been different if spending limits had been kept to"
Really? Or is this just clickbait, Mike?
The 15 seats in which there was overspending did not impact the result in any of the other 635 seats, so won't affect swings required in any of those.
Do we know if the 15 seats were all Tory victories? If so, none of the current Labour target seats are affected. If not, then only those Labour seats that are in the 15 are affected as targets, and the remainder as defences. Given the climate, I don't really think the outcome of the latter will be impacted.
Even if you say that the overspend resulted in a 10% increase in the Tory vote in those 2.4% of GB constituencies, what does that translate into in terms of share of the total GB vote? 0.1%?
I see the North Korea Leave faction is strong today.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
If you're leaking you're losing.
Judging by the frankly ridiculous squawking on here today, that's obviously wrong.
Mr. NorthWales, and if May wins, the Justice Secretary might wish to bear in mind that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that justice is for the accused and the accuser alike.
I was saying that before the last election we heard interminably about Labour's ground game and the personal votes built on local activism of various Lib Dem MPs. In the end neither mattered a damn. I don't know of any reason why volunteers charging around in a bus in areas they don't even know should be more effective. I very much doubt this excess or undeclared (since in many cases the spending would not have put the candidate above the limits) had much impact at all.
So all this effort by the Tories produced nothing. Would the Tories have won Thanet South if Nick Timothy and his team not been holed up in the smart Ramsgate hotel for weeks? He was certainly given the accolades afterwards.
I know you are a loyal Tory but really.
What evidence do you have that it did? Certainly, and beyond doubt the intention to make a difference was there. But that does not mean that it did nor that the results are therefore distorted and not a proper basis for assessment in 2017 which I think was your point.
Of course whether they were successful or not is an entirely different question from whether criminal offences were committed. There is absolutely no need for the CPS to show the expenditure made a difference. Which might be just as well.
Then why do it ? Are you guys so inefficient that you bus in people , put them up in swanky hotels for no effect ?
Surely everyone recognises that there is a great deal of displacement activity in politics. How many leaflets earnestly delivered go straight into the bin unread? Has standing outside polling stations ever changed anything? Who goes to local public meetings that hasn't already made up their mind? Can GOTV really help if your supporters are not motivated or unimpressed with your national leadership?
My belief is that over the last 40 years or so this has got ever more true with the largely artificial campaign events of the leaders being reported by the national media being the campaign and setting out the key issues for the election. Bye elections are arguably different but GEs and indeed LA elections seem to me to reflect national polling and results way more than local factors.
I may be wrong. But can anyone point to any evidence that this bussing actually made a difference?
I see the North Korea Leave faction is strong today.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
Or TMay knew that Jean-Claude Jeroboam-for-lunch Juncker would leak, and decided to be obdurate and demanding, to improve her election chances.
A theory quickly ruled out on the basis that the Prime Minister could win this election blindfold with a majority of 75.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Cui did it?. The EU Commission without a doubt to show May's position is untenable. (I think they were also genuinely a bit shocked). You could say it was a big breach of trust, which will make the negotiations harder going forward. Or you could say, Mrs May's position is actually untenable and the sooner she becomes more realistic the sooner we can move on and sort things out.
My personal view is that Mrs May's position is untenable but the EU's leak isn't helpful to them, fascinating as it is. The false assumptions behind Brexit have solidified over decades. They will unwind, as they must, but the EU can let that happen in an orderly way without weakening their position further.
The EU wants a deal on its terms. The trick for them is getting us to agree an arrangement that is materially worse than what we had had before because the alternative is worse again. That takes some subtlety.
Part of the country really has gone mad. Is padded cell Brexit an option?
You should come to Scotland, William. Last night I encountered a young SNP supporter who insisted that the SNP are polling at 66%; the Scottish government has a say in immigration policy; the Scottish parliament has a legal right to call another independence referendum; Shetlanders view themselves as Scots; the SNP has a majority at Holyrood, without support from anyone else; that if an independent Scotland joins the EU and rUK stays outside the single market and customs union then it will be up to the Scottish government whether or not to have the border as a hard external EU one or to be in a single market with rUK; and that the three main Scottish unionist parties are not Scottish but are "branch offices" of "English" parties.
Peak anecdotage.
I've got one. I 'met' someone on here last year pre referendum who suggested that the EU Leave vote might be higher in Scotland than the rUK. He was a sharp one alright.
You're not trying to throw factually wrong statements in with a wrong prediction? They're very different.
The kind of brainwashed SNP-voting bigots of whom I met a specimen last night are all over the place in Scotland and online. Things go a certain way and within a short period they could easily be putting people's windows in.
Do you find that using fashionable phrasing such as "peak anecdotage" helps you convey what you want to say?
'Fashionable', lol.
I think it covers the sort of 'anonymous bloke makes rubbish point badly with unverifiable story' pish that abounds on the internet.
I mean, I could say that I talked to some dude last night that said you used to post on here under another name but got banned for tinfoilhattery with an anti-semitic tinge, but that wouldn't make it true, would it?
So you are calling me a liar. How out of touch with attitudes in Scotland you are. Or you don't want to know. Or you know full well that these attitudes are widespread but you don't like them being brought to light.
"Makes rubbish point badly"? I was reporting what I'd experienced and what anyone with their ears open in Scotland knows is illustrative of what is widespread. You respond by sneering and accusing. That fits.
You might also like to check the meaning of the word "anonymous". Go and insult someone else, you silly little person with your silly fashionable terminology and your inexpert sarcasm. I will not continue this with you.
If the Tories were found to have overspent in 2015 in Thanet South, would it matter if the MP was charged after GE2017?
I would imagine that the 2017 election would be perfectly valid. However, if any criminal charges were brought against someone and he/she was convicted, then that is another matter.
I am not sure if he/she ceases to be an MP automatically. A speeding fine is criminal. Nobody resigns as a result !!!!!!!!!
Some of this is raised expectation. The only case I know of that I have experience is literally an accounting issue. And I mean literally. The expenses locally were below the limit and the expenses attributed to the national campaign if put up the local would have still been under the local spending limits. But the local constabulary have still sent a file for prosecution. Just remember that when predicting the fall out. There is no way on earth that any prosecution would be in the interests of justice.
Entertaining detail in the Downing Street talks story - Davis taking the opportunity to score off May by reminiscing about how he blocked her plans in the past:
Or TMay knew that Jean-Claude Jeroboam-for-lunch Juncker would leak, and decided to be obdurate and demanding, to improve her election chances.
She wasn't being obdurate and demanding, she was stating the obvious, and repeating her long-standing position that we want a deal good for both sides.
It does look as though our EU friends are genuinely surprised that we're not falling over ourselves to pay them €60bn for nothing in return. I don't think they are faking it, unfortunately.
I see the North Korea Leave faction is strong today.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
Or TMay knew that Jean-Claude Jeroboam-for-lunch Juncker would leak, and decided to be obdurate and demanding, to improve her election chances.
It says in the article she knows she's going to win.
Leaks happen. This one was to a German newspaper. It's much more about setting out a stall for voters there. But none of it should be a surprise. Brexit means Brexit, as May used to say.
Interesting. Tories on 58,2%. In GE 2015, they got 58.6%.
There was another poll in Kensington. The Tory percentage actually dropped.
That implies the Tories are piling on votes in seats that belong to other parties.
I wrote a few days ago that it's likely the Tory vote will flatline or decline slightly in seats like Tatton and Kensington, whereas it'll go up by 5-10% in the rustbelt.
I was saying that before the last election we heard interminably about Labour's ground game and the personal votes built on local activism of various Lib Dem MPs. In the end neither mattered a damn. I don't know of any reason why volunteers charging around in a bus in areas they don't even know should be more effective. I very much doubt this excess or undeclared (since in many cases the spending would not have put the candidate above the limits) had much impact at all.
So all this effort by the Tories produced nothing. Would the Tories have won Thanet South if Nick Timothy and his team not been holed up in the smart Ramsgate hotel for weeks? He was certainly given the accolades afterwards.
I know you are a loyal Tory but really.
What evidence do you have that it did? Certainly, and beyond doubt the intention to make a difference was there. But that does not mean that it did nor that the results are therefore distorted and not a proper basis for assessment in 2017 which I think was your point.
Of course whether they were successful or not is an entirely different question from whether criminal offences were committed. There is absolutely no need for the CPS to show the expenditure made a difference. Which might be just as well.
Then why do it ? Are you guys so inefficient that you bus in people , put them up in swanky hotels for no effect ?
Surely everyone recognises that there is a great deal of displacement activity in politics. How many leaflets earnestly delivered go straight into the bin unread? Has standing outside polling stations ever changed anything? Who goes to local public meetings that hasn't already made up their mind? Can GOTV really help if your supporters are not motivated or unimpressed with your national leadership?
My belief is that over the last 40 years or so this has got ever more true with the largely artificial campaign events of the leaders being reported by the national media being the campaign and setting out the key issues for the election. Bye elections are arguably different but GEs and indeed LA elections seem to me to reflect national polling and results way more than local factors.
I may be wrong. But can anyone point to any evidence that this bussing actually made a difference?
At the margins, it can, and sometimes victories are marginal.
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
AIUI in at least 14 of the seats, the CPS is now required by law to decide whether to prosecute, or abandon, before the GE?
I thought it was 15th May. I could be wrong !
TSE had some information on this the other day. Basically there are (after extension) 2 years in which charges must be brought but that 2 years runs from the time the declarations were put in. There is 5 weeks to do this but many do it straight away. It will vary by constituency but it seems to me that unless the returns were late the last date on which charges can be brought will be 4th June (5 weeks after 7th May 2015) and in many cases earlier for the reasons I have said.
Of course the fact people have been charged does not have to be declared until after 8th June but the chances are we will know before the election whether charges have been brought.
Or TMay knew that Jean-Claude Jeroboam-for-lunch Juncker would leak, and decided to be obdurate and demanding, to improve her election chances.
She wasn't being obdurate and demanding, she was stating the obvious, and repeating her long-standing position that we want a deal good for both sides.
It does look as though our EU friends are genuinely surprised that we're not falling over ourselves to pay them €60bn for nothing in return. I don't think they are faking it, unfortunately.
The ability to misread a serious situation is a defining characteristic of the EU.
Interesting. Tories on 58,2%. In GE 2015, they got 58.6%.
There was another poll in Kensington. The Tory percentage actually dropped.
That implies the Tories are piling on votes in seats that belong to other parties.
That would make sense.
There will come the point when UNS breaks down w.r.t. very safe seats, of course. If one party holds 60%, even 70%, of the vote in a constituency and a further national swing occurs in its favour then that may no longer be reflected in such a seat, because its vote is already maxed out there.
No matter how securely the Tories hold the wealthiest rural constituencies, or Labour or the SNP hold the poorest urban ones, neither party is ever going to get up to 100% of the vote. There will always be a certain amount of backing for other parties.
Thus, if the Conservatives are already more-or-less maxed out in their hundred or so safest seats, then all the projected increase in their vote share would have to take place in the remaining constituencies. The question is, are they outperforming most in the marginals that they need to capture, or are they building up a greater number of useless votes in very hard, or impossible, to win seats?
I believe that the Tories outperformed in the key marginals in the last election. If they do the same thing again then, needless to say, they ought to perform better than the polls would necessarily imply.
Although all of this is predicated on the notion that the polls are correct, which they probably aren't. Then, the question is, how much might the polls be out by in the first place?
Prediction isn't easy, is it? Poll numbers are still a better guide than casting the leaders' horoscopes - but only up to a point.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
What's the difference?
The fact is, the two sides can't even begin to discuss any exit bill, still less the Irish border, without first figuring out what the trading relationship is going to look like. They might be able to discuss reciprocal rights to EU and British citizens; indeed, they could have done that months ago as the UK suggested, but everything else - literally everything - depends massively on what the future relationship is going to be.
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
Brexit negotiations aren't all win/win or lose/lose. There is a large zero sum element to them because the UK and the EU have existential claims that are incompatible: "the UK doesn't need to be a member of the EU to get everything it wants"; "Benefits accrue from membership of the EU"
Edit and also because as a disconnection event, Brexit is harmful. Both parties want the damage to fall on the other side.
The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
I don't believe that. But if it is true, they have fatally misjudged the British psyche. We are a proud, stubborn and obstinate people. Perhaps these are grievous faults, but that's the case.
Indeed we are, sometimes to the point of stupidity, which is where we're heading right now.
If we Brexit to disaster, we will blame it on the EU (especially after all the shit they're pumping out about United Ireland, Gibraltar etc, it seems actively hostile - ditto "Brexit cannot be a success" - was Juncker drinking when he said that?). And once we've blamed it on the EU, returning to the EU will be utterly impossible for many decades, if not forever.
I don't know why everyone is reading what Juncker said as a statement of intent. Clearly that is his firmly-held opinion, and is shared by many other leaders of the EU and the EU27.
And as to staying out for decades or forever, let's see what a Great Depression scale of GDP contraction does to concentrate minds, should it come to that.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
Big G probably has this right but it shows a difference of mentality between the UK and large parts of the continent. As a populous you back the British people up against a wall and the likely response is 'come on then, do your worst you sack of bastards'.
Too many EU officials are giving off the kind of approach that is likely to get just such a reaction. I'm not sure they get that.
If this was a domestic situation the jilted partner, in this case the EU, would have a restraining order taken out against it for obsessive behaviour.
Those who voted against Leave are by and large under no illusions. Those who cant handle the result have spent their time denigrating the majority of those who voted.
So the EU are in the wrong. Remainers can't handle the result. EU officials are asking for it. And you and your mates are up for a ruck. I feel better already.
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
They've made it pretty clear, indeed very clear, that "sufficient progress" means - inter alia - agreeing to the €60bn, and lifelong ECJ rights for EU citizens in the UK. For starters.
An opening figure has been suggested by some. Ours is presumably zero. This is how negotiations begin. There is plenty of wriggle room if you look at the formal positions.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
When the EU27 announced their barmy position that the exit deal (including their absurd ransom demand) had to be agreed before discussion on the future relationship could start, I commented that this battle plan wouldn't survive 5 minutes contact with the enemy, since the issues are clearly linked.
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
They've made it pretty clear, indeed very clear, that "sufficient progress" means - inter alia - agreeing to the €60bn, and lifelong ECJ rights for EU citizens in the UK. For starters.
I think the EU elite consider that the EU is only option for everyone (like your Catholic/Reformation analogy you've used before). They intellectually and politically just cannot even conceive of the idea of a country leaving the EU and being better off.
Hence the "Brexit cannot be a success" and ridiculous demands designed to make everything fail.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
In my ongoing quest to out-geek Sunil, there is (horribly) an apt TNG quote for this: "When a man is convinced he's going to die tomorrow, he'll probably find a way to make it happen" The UK needs hope that the process will yield results. It plainly doesn't have it and is taking refuge in increasingly baroque anti-EU diatribes as a result (hence my use of "failing and blaming"). It would help if Juncker was off-team, but unfortunately his term expires in 2019. I wish I had better news for you.
But anyhoo. If you'll excuse me, I have work to do this affy and must away.
AIUI in at least 14 of the seats, the CPS is now required by law to decide whether to prosecute, or abandon, before the GE?
I thought it was 15th May. I could be wrong !
TSE had some information on this the other day. Basically there are (after extension) 2 years in which charges must be brought but that 2 years runs from the time the declarations were put in. There is 5 weeks to do this but many do it straight away. It will vary by constituency but it seems to me that unless the returns were late the last date on which charges can be brought will be 4th June (5 weeks after 7th May 2015) and in many cases earlier for the reasons I have said.
Of course the fact people have been charged does not have to be declared until after 8th June but the chances are we will know before the election whether charges have been brought.
Sorry that should have said 11th June, not the 4th. But most will be before the election.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
I don't believe that. But if it is true, they have fatally misjudged the British psyche. We are a proud, stubborn and obstinate people. Perhaps these are grievous faults, but that's the case.
Indeed we are, sometimes to the point of stupidity, which is where we're heading right now.
If we Brexit to disaster, we will blame it on the EU (especially after all the shit they're pumping out about United Ireland, Gibraltar etc, it seems actively hostile - ditto "Brexit cannot be a success" - was Juncker drinking when he said that?). And once we've blamed it on the EU, returning to the EU will be utterly impossible for many decades, if not forever.
I don't know why everyone is reading what Juncker said as a statement of intent. Clearly that is his firmly-held opinion, and is shared by many other leaders of the EU and the EU27.
And as to staying out for decades or forever, let's see what a Great Depression scale of GDP contraction does to concentrate minds, should it come to that.
Very, very few people behave like the prodigal son. People rationalise the big decisions they've taken.
AIUI in at least 14 of the seats, the CPS is now required by law to decide whether to prosecute, or abandon, before the GE?
I thought it was 15th May. I could be wrong !
TSE had some information on this the other day. Basically there are (after extension) 2 years in which charges must be brought but that 2 years runs from the time the declarations were put in. There is 5 weeks to do this but many do it straight away. It will vary by constituency but it seems to me that unless the returns were late the last date on which charges can be brought will be 4th June (5 weeks after 7th May 2015) and in many cases earlier for the reasons I have said.
Of course the fact people have been charged does not have to be declared until after 8th June but the chances are we will know before the election whether charges have been brought.
Do they have to be arrested to be charged? And if charged, how long can the delay be before the first court appearance?
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
With all dew respect to Mr Smithson, I don't think this will be a factor, at least not in the way he discuses it, for the simple reason that most if not all of the 2015 Target seats, will be safe Conservatives seats this time. (outside Scotland that is)
An entirely valid point. This election will be fought, not wholly but largely, around a different set of marginals to the last one. Certainly, in terms of Conservative defences, if you make the crude assumption that about half of the Ukip vote in each seat will defect, then there are only two sitting Tory MPs starting with majorities of less than 5% (David Mundell in Dumfriesshire and Gavin Barwell in Croydon Central.) In fact, we can probably assume that virtually all of the Tory MPs are safe, save for a small handful - principally those facing Liberal Democrat challengers - in Remain-leaning areas.
The swings that are likely to come into play are mainly in Labour's defences, and most of the tight ones that the Tories missed out on last time can, and in many cases will, fall given Ukip defections alone, before the Conservatives even have to try to convert any other new voters. The maths of this electoral map is entirely different from 2015.
Relative to the wider movements of voters between the parties, any difference made by campaign overspend in the last election is likely to be negligible.
(FWIW I don't think that there will be CPS announcements this side of June 8th either. These lawyers aren't thick, and presumably they won't want to find themselves caught in a similar kind of shitstorm to that which they will have seen engulf James Comey and the FBI in the States last Autumn.)
But failure to make an announcement could also be seen as political interference.It would seem highly suspicious if a few days following the election the CPS makes it clear that some Tory candidates /agents are to be prosecuted. Accusations of pro-Tory collusion would be heard.
On the other hand, if there is only going to be say one prosecution, then people will have to drop their "all Tories are crooks" schtick that they are currently enjoying - complaints made on the basis of, let's face it, politically motivated complaints..... So they will be happy for it to run until election day.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
What are the long term non-monetary gains of leaving?
AIUI in at least 14 of the seats, the CPS is now required by law to decide whether to prosecute, or abandon, before the GE?
I thought it was 15th May. I could be wrong !
TSE had some information on this the other day. Basically there are (after extension) 2 years in which charges must be brought but that 2 years runs from the time the declarations were put in. There is 5 weeks to do this but many do it straight away. It will vary by constituency but it seems to me that unless the returns were late the last date on which charges can be brought will be 4th June (5 weeks after 7th May 2015) and in many cases earlier for the reasons I have said.
Of course the fact people have been charged does not have to be declared until after 8th June but the chances are we will know before the election whether charges have been brought.
Do they have to be arrested to be charged? And if charged, how long can the delay be before the first court appearance?
The answer to the first question is "yes", you have to be arrested before charge, though you need not be remanded in custody.
Mr. Observer, the EU does have more weight on trade.
But it's not entirely one-sided.
And there's the issue of military and security/intelligence services. It's my understanding we leave Europol automatically on departing the EU, so unless an agreement is reached we won't immediately rejoin.
A sensible agreement benefits both sides. With French, British and German elections all within a few months, there'll be a lot of puffed out chests and swaggering. Once they're done, hopefully reason and mutual benefit rather than national tubthumping will be the way forward.
As far leaks, these are likelier the more one has to drink, so we can't really be surprised.
AIUI in at least 14 of the seats, the CPS is now required by law to decide whether to prosecute, or abandon, before the GE?
I thought it was 15th May. I could be wrong !
TSE had some information on this the other day. Basically there are (after extension) 2 years in which charges must be brought but that 2 years runs from the time the declarations were put in. There is 5 weeks to do this but many do it straight away. It will vary by constituency but it seems to me that unless the returns were late the last date on which charges can be brought will be 4th June (5 weeks after 7th May 2015) and in many cases earlier for the reasons I have said.
Of course the fact people have been charged does not have to be declared until after 8th June but the chances are we will know before the election whether charges have been brought.
Do they have to be arrested to be charged? And if charged, how long can the delay be before the first court appearance?
You'd be better asking an English lawyer that. I don't think arrest is relevant to the process or the time limits.
The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I do wonder if they are of the misguided opinion that by making their comments in the way they have that opinion in the UK is likely to force Theresa May to surrender to them
They do not know this Country or Theresa May. Also reports from France that Macron is getting worried as Le Pen closes on him. He is calling for wide scale EU reform and does look a bit worried.
The French election is only going to add to the EU problems no matter the result.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Cui did it?. The EU Commission without a doubt to show May's position is untenable. (I think they were also genuinely a bit shocked). You could say it was a big breach of trust, which will make the negotiations harder going forward. Or you could say, Mrs May's position is actually untenable and the sooner she becomes more realistic the sooner we can move on and sort things out.
My personal view is that Mrs May's position is untenable but the EU's leak isn't helpful to them, fascinating as it is. The false assumptions behind Brexit have solidified over decades. They will unwind, as they must, but the EU can let that happen in an orderly way without weakening their position further.
The EU wants a deal on its terms. The trick for them is getting us to agree an arrangement that is materially worse than what we had had before because the alternative is worse again. That takes some subtlety.
This leak was the opposite of subtle. They are driving TMay towards Fuck You Brexit.
Makes sense will keep the other 27 in check .However the new Farage supporters can keep telling us that no deal is better than a bad deal and lessons on German car sales and how they need the UK.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
I suppose that depends on whether you consider 'increased democratic accountability' a 'hurt'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
What are the long term non-monetary gains of leaving?
control of your own destiny, civil cohesion, laws to your own requirements for starters
That's not actually the EU position. The EU position is that sufficient progress needs to be made on the divorce bill and that the Council of Ministers will decide what sufficient progress is.
What's the difference?
The fact is, the two sides can't even begin to discuss any exit bill, still less the Irish border, without first figuring out what the trading relationship is going to look like. They might be able to discuss reciprocal rights to EU and British citizen; indeed, they could have done that months ago as the UK suggested, but everything else - literally everything - depends massively on what the future relationship is going to be.
The difference is there is a lot of potential flexibility in being able to define what progress looks like: "if" becomes a key word in such circumstances. Thus, if we can agree such and such, we will pay such and such over such and such a period. It's the kind of thing that the EU does all the time.
As for citizens' rights, two very different accounts of what has happened up to now are floating around. The EU says it made an offer that May rejected. It's a shame the British government will not tell us what offer it made to the EU.
I doubt bussing in activists would sway an election enough to make a difference. Of course there's no way of proving it, unless you poll every single voter in a constituency asking them their motivations for voting in a certain way. Would seeing more posters, or receiving more leaflets, really have serious influence? I know the Dimeral Lebocrats are still sore at being outplayed by their own ground game, but they themselves have serious form in this guerailla type electioneering, and if they had had the resources to bus in activists UK wide, they undoubtedly would have done.
Anyway, I do not think the public are as fickle as we all tend to think regarding elections.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
What is the long term non-economic gain from Brexit? The only way to conjure one up is to hope the EU collapses.
The only serious European power that rejects EU norms spends so much energy trying to destroy it for exactly this reason.
The reporting on the EU today and May standing firm will be adding thousands of votes for her. The EU just fail to understand that their behavior is only increasing the anger to them but then this is the same EU that has no idea how to handle someone who stands up to them
I was mystified - apart from the rather unedifying spectacle of Juncker calling Mutti on her mobile at 7am the following morning - what are they trying to achieve. Do they want to strengthen May's majority? Reinforce the - already present - perception that if it breaks down its their fault?
I think the biggest issue is Britain wants to make Brexit a success and that simply does not compute for the EU. Brexit has to be a failure - or they're in trouble - we are looking for 'win-'win' - they want 'win-lose'
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You have to ask: cui bono? To me the answer is: ultra-Brexiteers who are happy for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal. Is that what the Commission wants, too? Perhaps so, as they think it will damage Britain the most, and discourage others from exiting.
Perhaps they're hoping that Crash Brexit is so bad that the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales) ultimately has to beg, cap-in-hand, to be let back into the EU. This time with no opt-outs, from the Euro, from Schengen, from anything.
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
I don't believe that. But if it is true, they have fatally misjudged the British psyche. We are a proud, stubborn and obstinate people. Perhaps these are grievous faults, but that's the case.
If we Brexit to disaster, we will blame it on the EU (especially after all the shit they're pumping out about United Ireland, Gibraltar etc, it seems actively hostile - ditto "Brexit cannot be a success" - was Juncker drinking when he said that?). And once we've blamed it on the EU, returning to the EU will be utterly impossible for many decades, if not forever.
I think the UK and the EU are defining 'success' in different ways, and it's very likely that both will be correct in their own terms.
I remember a fair amount of scorn and derision being directed at Crick when these investigations first started. I think it is worth recognising what a great service he has done the country in exposing these practices.
Why did he focus on only one party? And don't tell me they weren't all at it, that's just not credible.
So all this effort by the Tories produced nothing. Would the Tories have won Thanet South if Nick Timothy and his team not been holed up in the smart Ramsgate hotel for weeks? He was certainly given the accolades afterwards.
I know you are a loyal Tory but really.
What evidence do you have that it did? Certainly, and beyond doubt the intention to make a difference was there. But that does not mean that it did nor that the results are therefore distorted and not a proper basis for assessment in 2017 which I think was your point.
Of course whether they were successful or not is an entirely different question from whether criminal offences were committed. There is absolutely no need for the CPS to show the expenditure made a difference. Which might be just as well.
Then why do it ? Are you guys so inefficient that you bus in people , put them up in swanky hotels for no effect ?
Surely everyone recognises that there is a great deal of displacement activity in politics. How many leaflets earnestly delivered go straight into the bin unread? Has standing outside polling stations ever changed anything? Who goes to local public meetings that hasn't already made up their mind? Can GOTV really help if your supporters are not motivated or unimpressed with your national leadership?
My belief is that over the last 40 years or so this has got ever more true with the largely artificial campaign events of the leaders being reported by the national media being the campaign and setting out the key issues for the election. Bye elections are arguably different but GEs and indeed LA elections seem to me to reflect national polling and results way more than local factors.
I may be wrong. But can anyone point to any evidence that this bussing actually made a difference?
At the margins, it can, and sometimes victories are marginal.
As a sometime local election agent, I can assure you that standing outside the polling stations and the rest of the GOTV effort certainly can have an impact. If you don't do it and your opponents do then you've already conceded them a big advantage. One campaign I ran we were expecting at best to squeak a win, more likely come a fairly close runner up and we won by quite a comfortable margin. I do think our GOTV effort, which by our figures showed we were yielding a better differential turnout than the opposition, made all the difference. (Oh and excellent my eve-of-poll leaflet )
I remember a fair amount of scorn and derision being directed at Crick when these investigations first started. I think it is worth recognising what a great service he has done the country in exposing these practices.
Why did he focus on only one party? And don't tell me they weren't all at it, that's just not credible.
Because Mark Clarke decided to get his revenge on the Tory party.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
If the EU isn't able/willing to replace Juncker and Barnier - and why should they? - does a neutral country need to mediate in negotiations between the hostile parties so that they don't break down?
Neutral in this context would mean a non-member of the EU, not a non-member of NATO.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has
The EU is a big and complex body that incorporates every major country in Europe. If we want a meaningful relationship with our neighbours we have no choice but to deal with the EU. As a non member that means doing what they tell us. As we left the EU mainly because we didn't like that we are in quandary:
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
I was saying that before the last election we heard interminably about Labour's ground game and the personal votes built on local activism of various Lib Dem MPs. In the end neither mattered a damn. I don't know of any reason why volunteers charging around in a bus in areas they don't even know should be more effective. I very much doubt this excess or undeclared (since in many cases the spending would not have put the candidate above the limits) had much impact at all.
So all this effort by the Tories produced nothing. Would the Tories have won Thanet South if Nick Timothy and his team not been holed up in the smart Ramsgate hotel for weeks? He was certainly given the accolades afterwards.
I know you are a loyal Tory but really.
What evidence do you have that it did? Certainly, and beyond doubt the intention to make a difference was there. But that does not mean that it did nor that the results are therefore distorted and not a proper basis for assessment in 2017 which I think was your point.
Of course whether they were successful or not is an entirely different question from whether criminal offences were committed. There is absolutely no need for the CPS to show the expenditure made a difference. Which might be just as well.
Then why do it ? Are you guys so inefficient that you bus in people , put them up in swanky hotels for no effect ?
Surely everyone recognises that there is a great deal of displacement activity in politics. How many leaflets earnestly delivered go straight into the bin unread? Has standing outside polling stations ever changed anything? Who goes to local public meetings that hasn't already made up their mind? Can GOTV really help if your supporters are not motivated or unimpressed with your national leadership?
My belief is that over the last 40 years or so this has got ever more true with the largely artificial campaign events of the leaders being reported by the national media being the campaign and setting out the key issues for the election. Bye elections are arguably different but GEs and indeed LA elections seem to me to reflect national polling and results way more than local factors.
I may be wrong. But can anyone point to any evidence that this bussing actually made a difference?
At the margins, it can, and sometimes victories are marginal.
But how big are those margins ?
How many extra votes does bussing in a coachload of Toryboys actually get the Conservatives ?
The difference is there is a lot of potential flexibility in being able to define what progress looks like: "if" becomes a key word in such circumstances. Thus, if we can agree such and such, we will pay such and such over such and such a period. It's the kind of thing that the EU does all the time.
In other words, they are talking nonsense when they try to say the exit agreement and the future trading relationship are separate.
As for citizens' rights, two very different accounts of what has happened up to now are floating around. The EU says it made an offer that May rejected. It's a shame the British government will not tell us what offer it made to the EU.
It would actually be far better if, as the PM has suggested, if they stopped trying to negotiate in public and instead disappeared into a smoke-free room and negotiated the outlines of the whole deal. Unfortunately our EU friends don't seem to be willing to do that, which certainly much reduces the chances of a deal which is good for both sides.
It is slightly mystifying, this whole Brexit Dinner Leak thingy.
You don't have to answer this because it's a personal question, but am I correct in thinking you have never been divorced? They (and we) are behaving like a divorced couple: both sides are prepared to act reasonably (by their own definitions of "reasonably"), find the other person's stance incomprehensible, and are trying for everything they can get, convinced that the other person cannot survive without them.
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
I've never been divorced but my parents were divorced, my brother is divorced, my sister is divorced, my Dad got divorced twice, I've seen too many divorces, and I understand divorce (it's one reason I've never been married, and never will marry).
Yes your analogy is pretty good, but in the end one hopes that logic would prevail on both sides, given the scale and importance of the task. Because this actually isn't a divorce, with two emotional people fighting over the kids; it's an important nation leaving a very large, complex trading bloc, and millions of livelihoods, on both sides, depend on the negotiators setting aside their personal feelings, and getting it right.
Getting it right involves the UK accepting the EU has the whip hand and that the focus should be on persuading them that it in their interests to give us a good deal, even if this falls short of what we have now trade-wise. It will mean us making many more concessions than them; and that's the big problem May has.
having the whip hand sort of depends what you want, the eu and uk want different things
We want our cake and to eat it too. In reality, though, there is no outcome that does not ending up hurting the UK more than it hurts the EU.
like all remainers you only see things in short term monetary gains
What is the long term non-economic gain from Brexit? The only way to conjure one up is to hope the EU collapses.
The only serious European power that rejects EU norms spends so much energy trying to destroy it for exactly this reason.
total guff
most of the world is outside the EU and works successfully. The EU is a failing power block a decline made faster by our departure
Comments
Personally I think they're right; that is the most likely long-term outcome.
'In America, they have checks & balances and separation of powers, in the U.K., we have Michael Crick'
And Corbyn's housing policy announcement today does not feature. Indeed I think the media have given up on him
a) Juncker was drunker than usual
b) May isn't a very good negotiator
possibly
c) errors in translation.
However, Barnier, a Frenchman, sums up most of the reasons that the EU is the way it is today. France was the only large founding member with any standing and wrote most of the rules. Timmermanns and Verhofstadt, i.e., a Dutchman and a Belgian, would be a better EU double act.
Money isn't everything.
As someone who campaigned in a few marginals in 2015 it was all about Dave's leadership, George's magnificent stewardship of the economy, and The SNP/Lab coalition.
Vote for us, we will not win !
https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/859046180390662144
Well, perhaps five minutes was an exaggeration, but not by much:
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, is said to have retorted that the rest of the EU could not do anything about the financial demands once the UK had left because it would no longer answer to the rulings of the European court of justice (ECJ).
Juncker pointed out that the UK wanted a trade deal, but without agreement on money there would be no desire among the 27 member states to make that happen. The whole exit process would change, the commission president is said to have responded.
Quite how they expect to discuss the Irish border issue without knowing what border and customs controls will be necessary is an even bigger mystery.
The UK and the EU27 may well be on different galaxies, but it's the EU27 who are out with the fairies.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/01/jean-claude-juncker-to-theresa-may-on-brexit-im-10-times-more-sceptical-than-i-was-before
Brexit Cannot Be A Success
So if negotiations do fail we already know why.
The EU has no great interest in the UK election result (which I imagine they see as a foregone conclusion anyway). I expect the leak is aimed at giving other parts of the EU an idea of the scale of the task ahead.
But wouldn't the EU risk making autarkic Leave stronger by doing so? The obvious conclusion is that the EU has concluded that's going to be the winning faction anyway.
Some suggestion JC strategy is to campaign is seats with significant Corbynite membership in preparation for 3'rd leadership contest.
Who will rid us of this turbulent priest?
Juncker's leaking of the dinner is the equivalent of Angelina briefing against Brad to the paps.
If you're leaking you're losing.
Really? Or is this just clickbait, Mike?
The 15 seats in which there was overspending did not impact the result in any of the other 635 seats, so won't affect swings required in any of those.
Do we know if the 15 seats were all Tory victories? If so, none of the current Labour target seats are affected. If not, then only those Labour seats that are in the 15 are affected as targets, and the remainder as defences. Given the climate, I don't really think the outcome of the latter will be impacted.
Even if you say that the overspend resulted in a 10% increase in the Tory vote in those 2.4% of GB constituencies, what does that translate into in terms of share of the total GB vote? 0.1%?
https://www.ft.com/content/8f169d1e-2bfd-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c
Edited extra bit: and well said, incidentally.
My belief is that over the last 40 years or so this has got ever more true with the largely artificial campaign events of the leaders being reported by the national media being the campaign and setting out the key issues for the election. Bye elections are arguably different but GEs and indeed LA elections seem to me to reflect national polling and results way more than local factors.
I may be wrong. But can anyone point to any evidence that this bussing actually made a difference?
My personal view is that Mrs May's position is untenable but the EU's leak isn't helpful to them, fascinating as it is. The false assumptions behind Brexit have solidified over decades. They will unwind, as they must, but the EU can let that happen in an orderly way without weakening their position further.
The EU wants a deal on its terms. The trick for them is getting us to agree an arrangement that is materially worse than what we had had before because the alternative is worse again. That takes some subtlety.
"Makes rubbish point badly"? I was reporting what I'd experienced and what anyone with their ears open in Scotland knows is illustrative of what is widespread. You respond by sneering and accusing. That fits.
You might also like to check the meaning of the word "anonymous". Go and insult someone else, you silly little person with your silly fashionable terminology and your inexpert sarcasm. I will not continue this with you.
I am not sure if he/she ceases to be an MP automatically. A speeding fine is criminal. Nobody resigns as a result !!!!!!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/01/jean-claude-juncker-to-theresa-may-on-brexit-im-10-times-more-sceptical-than-i-was-before
The Europeans evidently scratched their heads in some bafflement at this novel approach to team negotiations.
It does look as though our EU friends are genuinely surprised that we're not falling over ourselves to pay them €60bn for nothing in return. I don't think they are faking it, unfortunately.
Leaks happen. This one was to a German newspaper. It's much more about setting out a stall for voters there. But none of it should be a surprise. Brexit means Brexit, as May used to say.
Either this was done deliberately - to what purpose?
Improve May's chances? Frighten us into line?
Or it's a cock up.
Of course the fact people have been charged does not have to be declared until after 8th June but the chances are we will know before the election whether charges have been brought.
There will come the point when UNS breaks down w.r.t. very safe seats, of course. If one party holds 60%, even 70%, of the vote in a constituency and a further national swing occurs in its favour then that may no longer be reflected in such a seat, because its vote is already maxed out there.
No matter how securely the Tories hold the wealthiest rural constituencies, or Labour or the SNP hold the poorest urban ones, neither party is ever going to get up to 100% of the vote. There will always be a certain amount of backing for other parties.
Thus, if the Conservatives are already more-or-less maxed out in their hundred or so safest seats, then all the projected increase in their vote share would have to take place in the remaining constituencies. The question is, are they outperforming most in the marginals that they need to capture, or are they building up a greater number of useless votes in very hard, or impossible, to win seats?
I believe that the Tories outperformed in the key marginals in the last election. If they do the same thing again then, needless to say, they ought to perform better than the polls would necessarily imply.
Although all of this is predicated on the notion that the polls are correct, which they probably aren't. Then, the question is, how much might the polls be out by in the first place?
Prediction isn't easy, is it? Poll numbers are still a better guide than casting the leaders' horoscopes - but only up to a point.
i read it everyday on line and its coverage of Brexit is parrot like EU
they called the vote, wrong they called the UK economy wrong and the called Mrs May wrong
their journos seem tp spend all their time in london at the same dinner parties as young meeks.
this is then reported as the vox pop in wolverhampton
The fact is, the two sides can't even begin to discuss any exit bill, still less the Irish border, without first figuring out what the trading relationship is going to look like. They might be able to discuss reciprocal rights to EU and British citizens; indeed, they could have done that months ago as the UK suggested, but everything else - literally everything - depends massively on what the future relationship is going to be.
Edit and also because as a disconnection event, Brexit is harmful. Both parties want the damage to fall on the other side.
And as to staying out for decades or forever, let's see what a Great Depression scale of GDP contraction does to concentrate minds, should it come to that.
I think the EU elite consider that the EU is only option for everyone (like your Catholic/Reformation analogy you've used before). They intellectually and politically just cannot even conceive of the idea of a country leaving the EU and being better off.
Hence the "Brexit cannot be a success" and ridiculous demands designed to make everything fail.
But anyhoo. If you'll excuse me, I have work to do this affy and must away.
And as to staying out for decades or forever, let's see what a Great Depression scale of GDP contraction does to concentrate minds, should it come to that.
Very, very few people behave like the prodigal son. People rationalise the big decisions they've taken.
But it's not entirely one-sided.
And there's the issue of military and security/intelligence services. It's my understanding we leave Europol automatically on departing the EU, so unless an agreement is reached we won't immediately rejoin.
A sensible agreement benefits both sides. With French, British and German elections all within a few months, there'll be a lot of puffed out chests and swaggering. Once they're done, hopefully reason and mutual benefit rather than national tubthumping will be the way forward.
As far leaks, these are likelier the more one has to drink, so we can't really be surprised.
As for citizens' rights, two very different accounts of what has happened up to now are floating around. The EU says it made an offer that May rejected. It's a shame the British government will not tell us what offer it made to the EU.
Anyway, I do not think the public are as fickle as we all tend to think regarding elections.
The only serious European power that rejects EU norms spends so much energy trying to destroy it for exactly this reason.
Neutral in this context would mean a non-member of the EU, not a non-member of NATO.
1. We go for a close relationship where we are outside the EU but have no influence over it and our relationship with it.
2. We go Bhutan and cut ourselves off with all the consequences that implies.
3. We go for a close relationship as a member of the EU with the same level of influence as similar members.
We rejected (3) through a democratic vote, we don't want (2) and we can't bear (1). We have never faced up to the real choices.
How many extra votes does bussing in a coachload of Toryboys actually get the Conservatives ?
Are we talking tens of votes, or hundreds ?
most of the world is outside the EU and works successfully. The EU is a failing power block a decline made faster by our departure