“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” .
The language of authoritarian regimes all around the world, communist and facist. Good mainland European tendencies. Fortunately not our Burkean heritage.
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” .
The language of authoritarian regimes all around the world, communist and facist. Good mainland European tendencies. Fortunately not our Burkean heritage.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” .
The language of authoritarian regimes all around the world, communist and facist. Good mainland European tendencies. Fortunately not our Burkean heritage.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
But we've already said we don't want tariffs and we want the minimal possible degree of administrative hassle in EU-UK trade, and they keep telling us we can't have that because it's cherry-picking.
Pertinent question for this election: was that a sign that "pollsters usually overestimate Labour" or "pollsters usually overestimate the scale of landslides".
They estimated the Tories too high in 1983 as well....
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” .
The language of authoritarian regimes all around the world, communist and facist. Good mainland European tendencies. Fortunately not our Burkean heritage.
In 1997 Blair was the toast of Europe and he and Clinton were seen as the charismatic Messiahs of 'third way' centrism, which the likes of Schroeder and Prodi would then follow. Now May and Trump are seen as being the standard bearers of a populist nationalism the EU sees as dangerous and something which has to be kept under control in its own borders
Reading the Telegraph report on the Juncker Brexit Dinner Leak, it's clear they want to hurt us, just because. Even if it harms them, we must suffer more, pour encourager les autres.
Enough of this. Diamond Brexit. We leave, we suffer, they don't get a fucking penny, every European in a job in the UK can expect to feel anxiety from now on, likewise all our stupid pensioners over there.
Fuck it. Let's do it. DIAMOND HARD.
Sounds like more paperwork. I hope the Swiss are able to sign a very quick trade and immigration deal with the UK. It would make my life easy.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
Pertinent question for this election: was that a sign that "pollsters usually overestimate Labour" or "pollsters usually overestimate the scale of landslides".
They estimated the Tories too high in 1983 as well....
Given we've heard talk that people think 10,000 majority Lab seats are in play, setting hearts racing, I'd guess a landslide would be a bit less than thought, as it is still really hard to overcome that sort of thing.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
To see Labour in double figures would be really, really good.
No, it has to be agreed first. Payment comes later.
What matters is what we're getting in return. Obviously if we get nothing in return then we pay nothing. Therefore their position that the talks have to be in sequence is nonsensical.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
The Irish border question* is the essence of whether we are in the customs union or not. If we opt out of that then there is a hard border. Being inside the customs union makes a trade deal simple, being external to it means WTO tariffs as a starting point. How we jump on this issue carries a lot of baggage, and completely different sets of trade talks.
The EU are right to set this as one of the 3 early issues to resolve.
* also affects indyScotland, and the need for gigantic lorry parks in Kent and Picardy.
'Didn't you say yesterday you expected our GDP to go down by 5%-10% after Brexit but it was a price worth paying? Isn't that something like our defence budget our education budget or the entire NHS? Do you think the public will be equally sanguine?'
Well to soften the blow we will have €60 billion + £ 8 billion annual membership saving & roughly the same again from tariffs,I think we will manage.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
But we've already said we don't want tariffs and we want the minimal possible degree of administrative hassle in EU-UK trade, and they keep telling us we can't have that because it's cherry-picking.
Question, what's the irregular verb sequence for cherry picking?
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
To see Labour in double figures would be really, really good.
Think they'd need to be in the mid teens for that wouldn't they?!
No, it has to be agreed first. Payment comes later.
What matters is what we're getting in return. Obviously if we get nothing in return then we pay nothing. Therefore their position that the talks have to be in sequence is nonsensical.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
You seem to firmly believe that the UK is incapable of saying no. I find this belief incomprehensible.
Reading the Telegraph report on the Juncker Brexit Dinner Leak, it's clear they want to hurt us, just because. Even if it harms them, we must suffer more, pour encourager les autres.
Enough of this. Diamond Brexit. We leave, we suffer, they don't get a fucking penny, every European in a job in the UK can expect to feel anxiety from now on, likewise all our stupid pensioners over there.
Fuck it. Let's do it. DIAMOND HARD.
Sounds like more paperwork. I hope the Swiss are able to sign a very quick trade and immigration deal with the UK. It would make my life easy.
I suspect they can, they are not morons.
But will they want to?
The EU is a more important partner to them, and the Swiss may rather fancy a bigger share of the European banking sector.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
You seem to firmly believe that the UK is incapable of saying no. I find this belief incomprehensible.
I believe the political price of saying no will be too high and that the coalition of public support is fragile.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
Are you saying they will agree to that? Do they understand the implications? Clearly not. Insane. Bonkers.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually present it as infallible EU may demand anything, we may not request anything.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
No, it has to be agreed first. Payment comes later.
What matters is what we're getting in return. Obviously if we get nothing in return then we pay nothing. Therefore their position that the talks have to be in sequence is nonsensical.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
The Irish border question* is the essence of whether we are in the customs union or not. If we opt out of that then there is a hard border. Being inside the customs union makes a trade deal simple, being external to it means WTO tariffs as a starting point. How we jump on this issue carries a lot of baggage, and completely different sets of trade talks.
The EU are right to set this as one of the 3 early issues to resolve.
* also affects indyScotland, and the need for gigantic lorry parks in Kent and Picardy.
Nope that is not the case at all. You are confusing the single market with the Customs Union. It is entirely possible to be inside the single market without being in the Customs Union. Norway is an example.
Of course it is fairly clear we are going for being outside both which, even I I would prefer the Norway option, is understandable if your emphasis is on controlling movement of people. But that is entirely a separate issue to the Customs Union which is certainly not something we want as it prevents us making our own trade deals.
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” .
The language of authoritarian regimes all around the world, communist and facist. Good mainland European tendencies. Fortunately not our Burkean heritage.
Strong and Stable!
Strong and Stable!
Strong and Stable!
You've got me singing that to the tune of bits and pieces by the Dave Clark Five.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
ICM's latest poll had these subsets:
Labour constituencies majority up to 15% Labour constituencies majority over 15% Conservatives constituencies majority up to 10% Conservative constituencies majority over 10%
Do you know what the average majority of Labour constituencies which had a majority over 15% and likewise the average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% ?
It would be useful to know so as to calculate the swing in different types of constituency.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
To see Labour in double figures would be really, really good.
Think they'd need to be in the mid teens for that wouldn't they?!
Corbyn's views represent about 1 % of the population, a sub 20 % showing by his Labour is definitely possible.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
Are you saying they will agree to that? Do they understand the implications? Clearly not. Insane. Bonkers.
They will agree to it for Northern Ireland. It's the path of least resistance.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
You seem to firmly believe that the UK is incapable of saying no. I find this belief incomprehensible.
The UK is perfectly capable of saying No deal, but Leavers here seem to only just be coming round to the realisation that the EU can say no too.
I have to say at times like this, I am very glad to be working in an industry where my job is not in the hands of the three Brexiteers and their stooges.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
It can't for the same reason that Scotland can't. Besides if that is their tactics they can f*ck off right now.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
But we've already said we don't want tariffs and we want the minimal possible degree of administrative hassle in EU-UK trade, and they keep telling us we can't have that because it's cherry-picking.
Question, what's the irregular verb sequence for cherry picking?
You know
I do X You Cherry Pick They do Y
I make a rational decision You cherry pick They are snouting in the trough?
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
To see Labour in double figures would be really, really good.
Think they'd need to be in the mid teens for that wouldn't they?!
Corbyn's views represent about 1 % of the population, a sub 20 % showing by his Labour is definitely possible.
If the principle element of a party's core vote was whether the leader's views represented it, maybe, but people vote tribally all over these islands irrespective of whether, when you really think about it, their views match the policies and values proposed by particular parties. Large groups vote for who they think they should, based on the kind of person they are and the perception of a party, and particularly the perception of the party they think they are supposed to vote against.
If Lab drop to 25 I'll be surprised unless the recent uptick in polls is shown to be a short term thing. But they aren't dropping below 20 unless the LDs have replaced them.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
ICM's latest poll had these subsets:
Labour constituencies majority up to 15% Labour constituencies majority over 15% Conservatives constituencies majority up to 10% Conservative constituencies majority over 10%
Do you know what the average majority of Labour constituencies which had a majority over 15% and likewise the average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% ?
It would be useful to know so as to calculate the swing in different types of constituency.
I don't have that information to hand but I'll try to find out.
Reading the Telegraph report on the Juncker Brexit Dinner Leak, it's clear they want to hurt us, just because. Even if it harms them, we must suffer more, pour encourager les autres.
Enough of this. Diamond Brexit. We leave, we suffer, they don't get a fucking penny, every European in a job in the UK can expect to feel anxiety from now on, likewise all our stupid pensioners over there.
Fuck it. Let's do it. DIAMOND HARD.
Sounds like more paperwork. I hope the Swiss are able to sign a very quick trade and immigration deal with the UK. It would make my life easy.
I suspect they can, they are not morons.
But will they want to?
The EU is a more important partner to them, and the Swiss may rather fancy a bigger share of the European banking sector.
Have you noticed the issue of the Swiss referendum on free movement?
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually present it as infallible EU may demand anything, we may not request anything.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
I suspect that the EU's hostility to Britain has always been there but now its out in the open.
Previously British politicians and diplomats were happy to convince themselves it didn't exist or to deny that it existed for their own purposes.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
Yes they can pretty much rely on 120 seats even if they're 30% behind in the polls.
'At the moment medium remainers are recoiling in shock at the EU and in particular putting Juncker anywhere near the negotiations, so good luck with that.'
Junker's a very bitter man with his legacy confirmed as the individual responsible for the beak up of the EU.
If you add in his other personal issues I can't imagine it will be too far into the negotiations before he is asked to step aside .
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
You seem to firmly believe that the UK is incapable of saying no. I find this belief incomprehensible.
I believe the political price of saying no will be too high and that the coalition of public support is fragile.
I think the EU is making the political price of saying yes too high. The coalition of support isn't fragile and is firming up.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
It can't for the same reason that Scotland can't. Besides if that is their tactics they can f*ck off right now.
They can't though. The earliest we can walk away from our treaty obligations is March 2019. Plenty of time for the reality of what leaving the EU means to sink in.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
You seem to firmly believe that the UK is incapable of saying no. I find this belief incomprehensible.
The UK is perfectly capable of saying No deal, but Leavers here seem to only just be coming round to the realisation that the EU can say no too.
Everyone sensible always knew deals would be tough to make. The surprise is that apparently no one involved seems to want to come to a deal at all, since we are assured the firm positions on both sides are not going to shift, the positions are incompatible, and each side is prioritising getting the blame cards out.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
Given a majority of Scottish exports go to the rUK they would be hit hard by the inevitable customs duties and border controls that a hypothetical independent Scotland would face and Northern Ireland would face similar problems in exports to rUK and May will quite rightly state that Brexit terms should apply to the whole UK
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
Yes they can pretty much rely on 120 seats even if they're 30% behind in the polls.
Hmm they won't get 120 seats if they're 30 pts behind/.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
No, it has to be agreed first. Payment comes later.
Why? We owe them nothing.
We can opt not to pay, and go straight to hard Brexit planning, and I think we should. It will give time to our industries to make at least some plans.
I still don't see where they get 80 odd net gains from.
Scotland, Wales, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, Cumbria, Lancashire.
What about Yorkshire ???
There should be half a dozen Conservative gains in London as well.
I should have included Yorkshire.
Andy - do any of your spreadsheets give an answer as to whether any Conservative constituency meets (or comes close to) either of these criteria:
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
No they don't but I'd like to know the answer to the first question. I'm pretty sure there aren't any seats in category 2. Harrow East has a very low white British population but that's mainly due to a high Hindu population.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
Given a majority of Scottish exports go to the rUK they would be hit hard by the inevitable customs duties and border controls that a hypothetical independent Scotland would face and Northern Ireland would face similar problems in exports to rUK and May will quite rightly state that Brexit terms should apply to the whole UK
If you think that's inevitable then you also think the UK government has no viable solution for Northern Ireland and therefore they will be forced to concede a differentiated approach.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually present it as infallible EU may demand anything, we may not request anything.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
Deals can be negotiated that the EU can sell as bad to its people whilst it isn't bad for us, however they seem to feel there must be a material drop in our GDP growth even if it means people in the EU starving and going without healthcare. They are truly monsters.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually present it as infallible EU may demand anything, we may not request anything.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
Deals can be negotiated that the EU can sell as bad to its people whilst it isn't bad for us, however they seem to feel there must be a material drop in our GDP growth even if it means people in the EU starving and going without healthcare. They are truly monsters.
I severely doubt that is it, they are just making the same calculation as TMay - what they think is politically achievable is not the ideal scenario, so instead don't even bother for the ideal (though pretend you are), and concentrate on winning the political battle to shift blame for the less than ideal situation on to the other.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
So a really, really bad result for Labour is 120 seats.
Yes they can pretty much rely on 120 seats even if they're 30% behind in the polls.
Hmm they won't get 120 seats if they're 30 pts behind/.
Tories were 7 points ahead in 2015 so 30 points would be a 23 point shift. There are about 110 Labour seats with a majority of less than 23%. But you're probably correct that a uniform swing wouldn't apply.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
Given a majority of Scottish exports go to the rUK they would be hit hard by the inevitable customs duties and border controls that a hypothetical independent Scotland would face and Northern Ireland would face similar problems in exports to rUK and May will quite rightly state that Brexit terms should apply to the whole UK
If you think that's inevitable then you also think the UK government has no viable solution for Northern Ireland and therefore they will be forced to concede a differentiated approach.
If the EU continues in this vein a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic may be inevitable
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
Are you saying they will agree to that? Do they understand the implications? Clearly not. Insane. Bonkers.
They will agree to it for Northern Ireland. It's the path of least resistance.
Well, assuming you do appreciate that Northern Ireland can't be in either the customs union or single market (because it would mean a hard border between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland) it would be a huge backdoor to a free trade deal they hadn't agreed to. You appear to have not seen this. The former (hard border inside the UK) is unacceptable, whilst the other means we needn't have any free trade deals as we will already have a back door one.
Also I don't think you understand the term "it's the path of least resistance".
'Playboy lifestyle' on thousands THOUSANDS a year !
As I say put that aside...we have a f##king confirmed terrorist we can't / won't deport back to Iran and we are paying for him to continue to live here.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
It can't for the same reason that Scotland can't. Besides if that is their tactics they can f*ck off right now.
They can't though. The earliest we can walk away from our treaty obligations is March 2019. Plenty of time for the reality of what leaving the EU means to sink in.
There are a number of realities which can settle in on both sides of the channel. Man areas of the EU are reliant on the UK as a trading partner. The EU's attitude will go down like a bucket of cold sick.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually present it as infallible EU may demand anything, we may not request anything.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
Deals can be negotiated that the EU can sell as bad to its people whilst it isn't bad for us, however they seem to feel there must be a material drop in our GDP growth even if it means people in the EU starving and going without healthcare. They are truly monsters.
We knew that Brexit probly meant hard Brexit when we voted last June and could have a major impact on economic growth. Leavers chose to ignore that warning. I don't think they are monsters, just full of contradictions.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
It can't for the same reason that Scotland can't. Besides if that is their tactics they can f*ck off right now.
They can't though. The earliest we can walk away from our treaty obligations is March 2019. Plenty of time for the reality of what leaving the EU means to sink in.
There are a number of realities which can settle in on both sides of the channel. Man areas of the EU are reliant on the UK as a trading partner. The EU's attitude will go down like a bucket of cold sick.
Not really. The EU27 rapidly and unanimously agreed their position and have stuck to it. There is no sign of dissent.
Macron should be able to create a lot of jobs in Picardy, French customs are going to have to recruit quickly.
Reading the Telegraph report on the Juncker Brexit Dinner Leak, it's clear they want to hurt us, just because. Even if it harms them, we must suffer more, pour encourager les autres.
Enough of this. Diamond Brexit. We leave, we suffer, they don't get a fucking penny, every European in a job in the UK can expect to feel anxiety from now on, likewise all our stupid pensioners over there.
Fuck it. Let's do it. DIAMOND HARD.
Sounds like more paperwork. I hope the Swiss are able to sign a very quick trade and immigration deal with the UK. It would make my life easy.
I suspect they can, they are not morons.
But will they want to?
The EU is a more important partner to them, and the Swiss may rather fancy a bigger share of the European banking sector.
Switzerland doesn't have financial passporting. They (we?) stand to gain precisely zero if the UK leaves the single market. If anything it is a net gain for Zurich as two of the top five European financial cities will be outside of the zone and will account for more volume and trading than the rest of the EU put together (though I think London does that by itself). Having London outside of the zone makes Switzerland a handy ally for the UK and vice versa. As I said, one hopes they will come to a fast arrangement.
I still don't see where they get 80 odd net gains from.
Scotland, Wales, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, Cumbria, Lancashire.
What about Yorkshire ???
There should be half a dozen Conservative gains in London as well.
I should have included Yorkshire.
Andy - do any of your spreadsheets give an answer as to whether any Conservative constituency meets (or comes close to) either of these criteria:
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
I'm not Andy, so you'll have to settle for second best!
From BES 2015 data. (assuming that I am reading the data correctly) - The Conservative seat with the highest proportion of Social Housing is Harlow (28.7%), but this has 58.8% Private housing. - The seat with the smallest differential is Kensington. (26.6% Social, 33.8% private) - "Black and Muslim population" overlaps, so I cannot deduce figures for that particular criteria - The seat with the lowest proportion described as "Thnicity White" is Harrow East, with 39.2% , followed by Hendon with 54.9% - The Tory seat with the highest proportion of Muslims is Pendle (17.4%)
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually present it as infallible EU may demand anything, we may not request anything.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
Deals can be negotiated that the EU can sell as bad to its people whilst it isn't bad for us, however they seem to feel there must be a material drop in our GDP growth even if it means people in the EU starving and going without healthcare. They are truly monsters.
I severely doubt that is it, they are just making the same calculation as TMay - what they think is politically achievable is not the ideal scenario, so instead don't even bother for the ideal (though pretend you are), and concentrate on winning the political battle to shift blame for the less than ideal situation on to the other.
So you are saying they don't want a deal, even a good deal for them as it would have to be at least an OK deal for us, so therefore break the talks and blame us?
Could be, but we also get to talk to EU leaders and can head that off. That would hurt their electorate.
I don't see how it's possible for Northern Ireland to remain in the single market without placing a harder border on traffic between it and the rest of the UK, something which would be politically untenable to Unionists.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually present it as infallible EU may demand anything, we may not request anything.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
Deals can be negotiated that the EU can sell as bad to its people whilst it isn't bad for us, however they seem to feel there must be a material drop in our GDP growth even if it means people in the EU starving and going without healthcare. They are truly monsters.
We knew that Brexit probly meant hard Brexit when we voted last June and could have a major impact on economic growth. Leavers chose to ignore that warning. I don't think they are monsters, just full of contradictions.
I don't think it will have a major impact on our economic growth.
I still don't see where they get 80 odd net gains from.
Scotland, Wales, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, Cumbria, Lancashire.
What about Yorkshire ???
There should be half a dozen Conservative gains in London as well.
I should have included Yorkshire.
Andy - do any of your spreadsheets give an answer as to whether any Conservative constituency meets (or comes close to) either of these criteria:
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
No they don't but I'd like to know the answer to the first question. I'm pretty sure there aren't any seats in category 2. Harrow East has a very low white British population but that's mainly due to a high Hindu population.
I ask because both of those criteria apply to Westminster North on the UKPR 2011 data and probably even more so now.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
It can't for the same reason that Scotland can't. Besides if that is their tactics they can f*ck off right now.
They can't though. The earliest we can walk away from our treaty obligations is March 2019. Plenty of time for the reality of what leaving the EU means to sink in.
There are a number of realities which can settle in on both sides of the channel. Man areas of the EU are reliant on the UK as a trading partner. The EU's attitude will go down like a bucket of cold sick.
Not really. The EU27 rapidly and unanimously agreed their position and have stuck to it. There is no sign of dissent.
Macron should be able to create a lot of jobs in Picardy, French customs are going to have to recruit quickly.
The superficial appearance of unity is not the same as unity.
I still don't see where they get 80 odd net gains from.
Scotland, Wales, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, Cumbria, Lancashire.
What about Yorkshire ???
There should be half a dozen Conservative gains in London as well.
I should have included Yorkshire.
Andy - do any of your spreadsheets give an answer as to whether any Conservative constituency meets (or comes close to) either of these criteria:
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
No they don't but I'd like to know the answer to the first question. I'm pretty sure there aren't any seats in category 2. Harrow East has a very low white British population but that's mainly due to a high Hindu population.
I ask because both of those criteria apply to Westminster North on the UKPR 2011 data and probably even more so now.
One of the most difficult target seats for the Tories to win. I'd probably say a narrow Labour hold regardless of what happens elsewhere.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
ICM's latest poll had these subsets:
Labour constituencies majority up to 15% Labour constituencies majority over 15% Conservatives constituencies majority up to 10% Conservative constituencies majority over 10%
Do you know what the average majority of Labour constituencies which had a majority over 15% and likewise the average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% ?
It would be useful to know so as to calculate the swing in different types of constituency.
I don't have that information to hand but I'll try to find out.
Amusingly - in LD marginals in E&W - only 2% would vote for the LDs! However you look at it, it does not look good for Labour - Labour is ahead by 2% in 'Safe' Labour seats.
I still don't see where they get 80 odd net gains from.
Scotland, Wales, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, Cumbria, Lancashire.
What about Yorkshire ???
There should be half a dozen Conservative gains in London as well.
I should have included Yorkshire.
Andy - do any of your spreadsheets give an answer as to whether any Conservative constituency meets (or comes close to) either of these criteria:
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
I'm not Andy, so you'll have to settle for second best!
From BES 2015 data. (assuming that I am reading the data correctly) - The Conservative seat with the highest proportion of Social Housing is Harlow (28.7%), but this has 58.8% Private housing. - The seat with the smallest differential is Kensington. (26.6% Social, 33.8% private) - "Black and Muslim population" overlaps, so I cannot deduce figures for that particular criteria - The seat with the lowest proportion described as "Thnicity White" is Harrow East, with 39.2% , followed by Hendon with 54.9% - The Tory seat with the highest proportion of Muslims is Pendle (17.4%)
Thanks Disraeli. There's a very high Hindu population in Harrow East.
Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
I'm so annoyed with the EU! I'm so annoyed with the EU! You know what we ought to do? You know what we ought to do? We've still got nuclear weapons. We ought to fire a nuclear missile at London. That'll show them! That'll show them all! They won't mess with us again! HaaaHaaaaHHHaaaa!!!
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's ge.
Deals
I severely doubt that is it, they are just making the same calculation as TMay - what they think is politically achievable is not the ideal scenario, so instead don't even bother for the ideal (though pretend you are), and concentrate on winning the political battle to shift blame for the less than ideal situation on to the other.
So you are saying they don't want a deal, even a good deal for them as it would have to be at least an OK deal for us, so therefore break the talks and blame us?
Could be, but we also get to talk to EU leaders and can head that off. That would hurt their electorate.
That's exactly what I am saying, yes. In theory both sides want a deal, but neither side are willing to take a political hit to achieve it - it's the same reason the EU has struggled so much with reform, as after fine words need to turn to action, it would require admitting there is a problem.
The EU leaders are likely on board with that plan too, unfortunately. Easier to blame us, than sway the EU machine and any other leaders they have to sway. Given our own defensive response is likely to be hostile, particularly our absurdly over the top media, and it should be easy for the EU leaders to pass the buck on any negative blowbacks they do get.
I had high hopes all sides would, after an initial bit of whining, get down to serious business, but given our own EU supporters believe the EU is not interested in being 'generous' (which means anything we ask for), I cannot see the EU leaders being amenable, and TMay likely agrees given what she set out in her initial entreaties.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
ICM's latest poll had these subsets:
Labour constituencies majority up to 15% Labour constituencies majority over 15% Conservatives constituencies majority up to 10% Conservative constituencies majority over 10%
Do you know what the average majority of Labour constituencies which had a majority over 15% and likewise the average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% ?
It would be useful to know so as to calculate the swing in different types of constituency.
I don't have that information to hand but I'll try to find out.
I still don't see where they get 80 odd net gains from.
Scotland, Wales, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, Cumbria, Lancashire.
What about Yorkshire ???
There should be half a dozen Conservative gains in London as well.
I should have included Yorkshire.
Andy - do any of your spreadsheets give an answer as to whether any Conservative constituency meets (or comes close to) either of these criteria:
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
No they don't but I'd like to know the answer to the first question. I'm pretty sure there aren't any seats in category 2. Harrow East has a very low white British population but that's mainly due to a high Hindu population.
I ask because both of those criteria apply to Westminster North on the UKPR 2011 data and probably even more so now.
One of the most difficult target seats for the Tories to win. I'd probably say a narrow Labour hold regardless of what happens elsewhere.
The 3/1 on a Labour hold from SkyBet looks like great value to me.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
Are you saying they will agree to that? Do they understand the implications? Clearly not. Insane. Bonkers.
They will agree to it for Northern Ireland. It's the path of least resistance.
Well, assuming you do appreciate that Northern Ireland can't be in either the customs union or single market (because it would mean a hard border between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland) it would be a huge backdoor to a free trade deal they hadn't agreed to. You appear to have not seen this. The former (hard border inside the UK) is unacceptable, whilst the other means we needn't have any free trade deals as we will already have a back door one.
...which would be unacceptable to EU27.
And Britgov can't offer EU27 a united Ireland, because that would require referendums on both sides of the border, each of which could go either way. Voters' main considerations would be:
* the border (almost nobody wants it to harden);
* peace (almost nobody wants a return to the Troubles) with specifics: (North) the border; (South) the border, and also how people feel about having the DUP in the Dail, because even if there were devolution - very unlikely - there would still be 26-county representation in the Dail and therefore not only a "West Belfast" question but a strong party influencing all-Ireland law and policy; some south of the border would fear unification not out of anti-Protestant sectarianism but because it might eventually reignite the Troubles; criminal gangs are big in Ireland and the Dublin ones whether settled or Traveller might not fancy Protestant ones coming to their turf;
* (North) the NHS (unite Ireland and it's bye bye NHS in the North; many would keep their British passports and come to GB for treatment; much less hassle to vote against unification).
What a mess. Unification would be a divisive issue in Ireland.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's ge.
Deals
I severely doubt that is it, they are just making the same calculation as TMay - what they think is politically achievable is not the ideal scenario, so instead don't even bother for the ideal (though pretend you are), and concentrate on winning the political battle to shift blame for the less than ideal situation on to the other.
So you are saying they don't want a deal, even a good deal for them as it would have to be at least an OK deal for us, so therefore break the talks and blame us?
Could be, but we also get to talk to EU leaders and can head that off. That would hurt their electorate.
That's exactly what I am saying, yes. In theory both sides want a deal, but neither side are willing to take a political hit to achieve it - it's the same reason the EU has struggled so much with reform, as after fine words need to turn to action, it would require admitting there is a problem.
The EU leaders are likely on board with that plan too, unfortunately. Easier to blame us, than sway the EU machine and any other leaders they have to sway. Given our own defensive response is likely to be hostile, particularly our absurdly over the top media, and it should be easy for the EU leaders to pass the buck on any negative blowbacks they do get.
I had high hopes all sides would, after an initial bit of whining, get down to serious business, but given our own EU supporters believe the EU is not interested in being 'generous' (which means anything we ask for), I cannot see the EU leaders being amenable, and TMay likely agrees given what she set out in her initial entreaties.
Every cloud has a silver lining, and a hit to EZ exporters will soften the Euro a bit, thereby taking the heat off the Southern Euro countries, particularly Italy and Greece.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
I think our position should be clear. Laugh at 60 billion Euros and point out that if they want anything it would be above our actual obligations unless they can show us which treaty provision provides otherwise, and suggest if they actually want anything it had better be a stormingly good deal including everything we want negotiated in time for us leaving on the 29th of March 2019.
Hard Brexit nailed on, as I have been saying for about 9 months.
Finally the Leavers cognitive dissonance is beginning to crystalise.
No not really. For a start there is a slim chance they will grow up and want a trade deal. Barnier is on record as having a tight timetable. The sticking point is the demand that Brexit must be a failure. Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
It's fine if a deal has to be something they can prove is not as good as EU membership, that makes total sense. It's the clearly being punitive that sticks in my craw, and that less reasonable supporters continually over the edge.
Deals can be negotiated that the EU can sell as bad to its people whilst it isn't bad for us, however they seem to feel there must be a material drop in our GDP growth even if it means people in the EU starving and going without healthcare. They are truly monsters.
We knew that Brexit probly meant hard Brexit when we voted last June and could have a major impact on economic growth. Leavers chose to ignore that warning. I don't think they are monsters, just full of contradictions.
The EU dealt the same way with Greece over austerity after it elected Syriza and would likely to do the same with Italy over the Eurozone if it elects 5* next year but the UK is in a stronger economic position than both and can survive Brexit
Given that, it has to be said that I am more certain of my vote and I know many remainers who are getting very annoyed at the EU.
I'm so annoyed with the EU! I'm so annoyed with the EU! You know what we ought to do? You know what we ought to do? We've still got nuclear weapons. We ought to fire a nuclear missile at London. That'll show them! That'll show them all! They won't mess with us again! HaaaHaaaaHHHaaaa!!!
Well, it would kill a large number of EU politicians and a number of useless hangers on but I still think there is a minor flaw in your plan.
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
You seem to firmly believe that the UK is incapable of saying no. I find this belief incomprehensible.
The UK is perfectly capable of saying No deal, but Leavers here seem to only just be coming round to the realisation that the EU can say no too.
I have to say at times like this, I am very glad to be working in an industry where my job is not in the hands of the three Brexiteers and their stooges.
This Leaver has always known that the EU was likely to want to punish us, whatever phraseology they used, and hence we would be best leaving on WTO terms and only seeking to negotiate a deal with the EU once the emotions and expectations of our membership have passed and both sides are ready for win-win negotiations.
Interesting electoral fact for nerds: the 232 seats Labour won at GE2015 divide almost evenly into those with majorities of below 25% and those above. 117 below, 115 above.
ICM's latest poll had these subsets:
Labour constituencies majority up to 15% Labour constituencies majority over 15% Conservatives constituencies majority up to 10% Conservative constituencies majority over 10%
Do you know what the average majority of Labour constituencies which had a majority over 15% and likewise the average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% ?
It would be useful to know so as to calculate the swing in different types of constituency.
I don't have that information to hand but I'll try to find out.
Thanks
average majority of Labour constituencies which had a majority over 15% was 32% average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% was 29.3%
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
In other words, just do what we're told (remain in the Customs Union and the single market) and damn the voters.
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
Northern Ireland at least should stay in the Customs Union and single market. And once the principle of a differentiated deal is agreed, the SNP swings into gear. It's salami tactics.
Given a majority of Scottish exports go to the rUK they would be hit hard by the inevitable customs duties and border controls that a hypothetical independent Scotland would face and Northern Ireland would face similar problems in exports to rUK and May will quite rightly state that Brexit terms should apply to the whole UK
From Derek Bateman's blog
National Accounts Statistics.... 2015 stats. They appear to show Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK to be £45 billion while imports from rUK to be nearer £51 billion, a difference of £6 billion. As I said, they need us just as much as we need them. Indeed, if you think of England’s exports totalling in the region of £220 billion, then the share they send to Scottish markets is about 23 per cent of their export total. Not as much as 63 per cent, I grant you, but a huge economic hit on a country which will be struggling to find markets post Brexit…and even if it wasn’t.
I still don't see where they get 80 odd net gains from.
Scotland, Wales, North East, West Midlands, East Midlands, Cumbria, Lancashire.
What about Yorkshire ???
There should be half a dozen Conservative gains in London as well.
I should have included Yorkshire.
Andy - do any of your spreadsheets give an answer as to whether any Conservative constituency meets (or comes close to) either of these criteria:
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
I'm not Andy, so you'll have to settle for second best!
From BES 2015 data. (assuming that I am reading the data correctly) - The Conservative seat with the highest proportion of Social Housing is Harlow (28.7%), but this has 58.8% Private housing. - The seat with the smallest differential is Kensington. (26.6% Social, 33.8% private) - "Black and Muslim population" overlaps, so I cannot deduce figures for that particular criteria - The seat with the lowest proportion described as "Thnicity White" is Harrow East, with 39.2% , followed by Hendon with 54.9% - The Tory seat with the highest proportion of Muslims is Pendle (17.4%)
It's even clearer when you think about the Irish border question, which they also say should be resolved before they'll discuss a trade deal. How on earth is that supposed to work? We're supposed to agree arrangements on the border without knowing whether there will have to be tariffs and customs checks at the border? Are these people quite sane?
No, we're supposed to agree that tariffs and customs checks are not acceptable, and build any subsequent elements of the deal around that.
Are you saying they will agree to that? Do they understand the implications? Clearly not. Insane. Bonkers.
They will agree to it for Northern Ireland. It's the path of least resistance.
Well, assuming you do appreciate that Northern Ireland can't be in either the customs union or single market (because it would mean a hard border between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland) it would be a huge backdoor to a free trade deal they hadn't agreed to. You appear to have not seen this. The former (hard border inside the UK) is unacceptable, whilst the other means we needn't have any free trade deals as we will already have a back door one.
...which would be unacceptable to EU27.
And Britgov can't offer EU27 a united Ireland, because that would require referendums on both sides of the border, each of which could go either way. Voters' main considerations would be:
* the border (almost nobody wants it to harden);
* peace (almost nobody wants a return to the Troubles) with specifics: (North) the border; (South) the border, and also how people feel about having the DUP in the Dail, because even if there were devolution - very unlikely - there would still be 26-county representation in the Dail and therefore not only a "West Belfast" question but a strong party influencing all-Ireland law and policy; some south of the border would fear unification not out of anti-Protestant sectarianism but because it might eventually reignite the Troubles; criminal gangs are big in Ireland and the Dublin ones whether settled or Traveller might not fancy Protestant ones coming to their turf;
* (North) the NHS (unite Ireland and it's bye bye NHS in the North; many would keep their British passports and come to GB for treatment).
This is a complete mess.
Quite, which is why WillamGlenn is talking out of his hat.
Quite, which is why WillamGlenn is talking out of his hat.
Not at all. Everyone will want to avoid a premature border poll, and the best way to do that is by granting a special status that effectively kept Northern Ireland in the EU under UK sovereignty. The issues about managing the border with the mainland are for another day.
That's not the choice though. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
You are right, but bizarrely the EU27 claim that the bill has to be settled first.
No, it has to be agreed first. Payment comes later.
Why? We owe them nothing.
We can opt not to pay, and go straight to hard Brexit planning, and I think we should. It will give time to our industries to make at least some plans.
A playboy life in Peckham sounds a bit downmarket, like a slap-up dinner in McDonalds - THREE cheeseburgers.
But yes, under international treaties we can't ship anyone off to somewhere that we think will execute or torture them. Doesn't matter who they are or what they've done.
Comments
Strong and Stable!
Strong and Stable!
Having a laugh ?
We should just roll over agree to what they want and pay € 60 billion.
1) The council / social housing total was higher than the owner-occupied housing total.
2) The combined Black and Muslim population was higher than the White British population.
Labour 47% - reality 43%
Tories 29% - reality 31%
6 pt overstatement of the lead.
Was quite a long night, as I remember. I was up for Tatton, Portillo and Edwina Currie getting punted. I do love election night drama.
They estimated the Tories too high in 1983 as well....
Seems you and Ally_B have a lot in common.
He'd definitely be a great negotiator.
Now May and Trump are seen as being the standard bearers of a populist nationalism the EU sees as dangerous and something which has to be kept under control in its own borders
The EU are right to set this as one of the 3 early issues to resolve.
* also affects indyScotland, and the need for gigantic lorry parks in Kent and Picardy.
Well to soften the blow we will have €60 billion + £ 8 billion annual membership saving & roughly the same again from tariffs,I think we will manage.
You know
I do X
You Cherry Pick
They do Y
The EU is a more important partner to them, and the Swiss may rather fancy a bigger share of the European banking sector.
If the negotiators are trying for a deal they can say is not great for us, while being fair to a nation which will be close and partnering in many areas, that's great.
That the EU apparently thinks it gave us plenty before does not bode well. People love to say how we don't understand it, and that's entirely out fault, but they never really meet us halfway on this. It is what turned plenty of people happy with the single market and free movement into Brexiters, and probably pushed Leave over the edge.
Of course it is fairly clear we are going for being outside both which, even I I would prefer the Norway option, is understandable if your emphasis is on controlling movement of people. But that is entirely a separate issue to the Customs Union which is certainly not something we want as it prevents us making our own trade deals.
Labour constituencies majority up to 15%
Labour constituencies majority over 15%
Conservatives constituencies majority up to 10%
Conservative constituencies majority over 10%
https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017_sunonsunday_camp_apr28th.pdf
Do you know what the average majority of Labour constituencies which had a majority over 15% and likewise the average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% ?
It would be useful to know so as to calculate the swing in different types of constituency.
I have to say at times like this, I am very glad to be working in an industry where my job is not in the hands of the three Brexiteers and their stooges.
You cherry pick
They are snouting in the trough?
If Lab drop to 25 I'll be surprised unless the recent uptick in polls is shown to be a short term thing. But they aren't dropping below 20 unless the LDs have replaced them.
Previously British politicians and diplomats were happy to convince themselves it didn't exist or to deny that it existed for their own purposes.
Never worked so hard in all my life.
Junker's a very bitter man with his legacy confirmed as the individual responsible for the beak up of the EU.
If you add in his other personal issues I can't imagine it will be too far into the negotiations before he is asked to step aside .
@NickyMorgan01 The choice on May 7 is clear: strong & stable govt with @David_Cameron or @Ed_Miliband held to ransom by the SNP
I was 11. The sun was getting ready to shine for the first time in my life/the dark clouds of socialism were gathering.
Nejad, who says he feared execution, got a new name but conditions of his release meant he could not work or reveal his real identity.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3456955/terrorist-jailed-for-his-part-in-iranian-embassy-siege-living-playboy-life-in-peckham-the-home-of-only-fools-and-horses-del-boy/
Also I don't think you understand the term "it's the path of least resistance".
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/liverpoolwalton/
"fully costed" says the fan of Stalin and Mao.
Fully costed by spending the same money 20 times I think he means.
Macron should be able to create a lot of jobs in Picardy, French customs are going to have to recruit quickly.
From BES 2015 data. (assuming that I am reading the data correctly)
- The Conservative seat with the highest proportion of Social Housing is Harlow (28.7%), but this has 58.8% Private housing.
- The seat with the smallest differential is Kensington. (26.6% Social, 33.8% private)
- "Black and Muslim population" overlaps, so I cannot deduce figures for that particular criteria
- The seat with the lowest proportion described as "Thnicity White" is Harrow East, with 39.2% , followed by Hendon with 54.9%
- The Tory seat with the highest proportion of Muslims is Pendle (17.4%)
Could be, but we also get to talk to EU leaders and can head that off. That would hurt their electorate.
Then Boris and Gove came out with the £350m/week/nhs lie a year later.
The argument that the opposition are throwing around uncosted garbage won't resonate.
However you look at it, it does not look good for Labour - Labour is ahead by 2% in 'Safe' Labour seats.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/05/01/2033241/china-is-recruiting-20000-people-to-write-its-own-wikipedia
The EU leaders are likely on board with that plan too, unfortunately. Easier to blame us, than sway the EU machine and any other leaders they have to sway. Given our own defensive response is likely to be hostile, particularly our absurdly over the top media, and it should be easy for the EU leaders to pass the buck on any negative blowbacks they do get.
I had high hopes all sides would, after an initial bit of whining, get down to serious business, but given our own EU supporters believe the EU is not interested in being 'generous' (which means anything we ask for), I cannot see the EU leaders being amenable, and TMay likely agrees given what she set out in her initial entreaties.
And Britgov can't offer EU27 a united Ireland, because that would require referendums on both sides of the border, each of which could go either way. Voters' main considerations would be:
* the border (almost nobody wants it to harden);
* peace (almost nobody wants a return to the Troubles)
with specifics:
(North) the border;
(South) the border, and also how people feel about having the DUP in the Dail, because even if there were devolution - very unlikely - there would still be 26-county representation in the Dail and therefore not only a "West Belfast" question but a strong party influencing all-Ireland law and policy; some south of the border would fear unification not out of anti-Protestant sectarianism but because it might eventually reignite the Troubles; criminal gangs are big in Ireland and the Dublin ones whether settled or Traveller might not fancy Protestant ones coming to their turf;
* (North) the NHS (unite Ireland and it's bye bye NHS in the North; many would keep their British passports and come to GB for treatment; much less hassle to vote against unification).
What a mess. Unification would be a divisive issue in Ireland.
average majority of Conservative constituencies which had a majority over 10% was 29.3%
National Accounts Statistics.... 2015 stats. They appear to show Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK to be £45 billion while imports from rUK to be nearer £51 billion, a difference of £6 billion. As I said, they need us just as much as we need them. Indeed, if you think of England’s exports totalling in the region of £220 billion, then the share they send to Scottish markets is about 23 per cent of their export total. Not as much as 63 per cent, I grant you, but a huge economic hit on a country which will be struggling to find markets post Brexit…and even if it wasn’t.
You hide it well :-)
We agree.
But yes, under international treaties we can't ship anyone off to somewhere that we think will execute or torture them. Doesn't matter who they are or what they've done.