For the LD to lose net seats on Thursday would be a disaster for them. I was following the ?wisdom? of many on PB: that they'd do well in the locals on Thursday, and less well in the GE.
Although I'm sceptical of whether Labour are doing as relatively "well" as the weekend polls were showing, one thing I do think is pretty sure is that the LDs are flopping.
The "party of Remain" thing was always going to be a dud. Most Remain voters either didn't feel THAT strongly in the first place, or if they did feel strongly at first are now resigned to it with Article 50 being triggered and the process seeming irreversible, OR even if people do still feel strongly about it, they feel even stronger about things like the NHS et al when it comes to casting their vote in a general election.
They'll probably gain councillors this week, but I do think a net loss of seats in the GE in England and Wales is very much a possibility (not sure about net losses in the UK as a whole because Scotland seems so up in the air).
The other factors to consider are that fines have already been handed down. The 'electoral' implications have already been dealt with by the commission therefore surely? All that remains is whether criminal law has been broken and if there us public interest in pursuing it to trial. The CPS might conclude that, politically, the public interest would be prejudiced rather than served by prosecution as we are in an election campaign. Which would be handy for the blues.
1) The standard of proof for the CPS is going to be much higher than that used by the Electoral Commission 2) The risk of political blowback to the CPS is enormous, particularly if there are acquittals. Therefore, I would only expect charges in the most clear cut cases. Certainly not anything like 30.
3) As the practice seems prevalent in a number of parties, I expect the prosecutions will include individuals from more than one party to avoid accusations of bias.
AIUI only the individual cases concerning the high spending by Tories were sufficiently serious to refer to the CPS.
All the debate about the outcome, disqualifications, by-elections etc. is missing the point, and I agree with others that these outcomes are very unlikely anyway.
All that matters is the potential for one day's negative headlines about the Tories, in the event that the CPS decides to progress some of the cases. This is by no means certain, however, and I take Mark's frequent writing about the matter as an attempt to influence the debate and atmosphere rather than an objective prediction of what is likely to happen.
For the LD to lose net seats on Thursday would be a disaster for them. I was following the ?wisdom? of many on PB: that they'd do well in the locals on Thursday, and less well in the GE.
Although I'm sceptical of whether Labour are doing as relatively "well" as the weekend polls were showing, one thing I do think is pretty sure is that the LDs are flopping.
The "party of Remain" thing was always going to be a dud. Most Remain voters either didn't feel THAT strongly in the first place, or if they did feel strongly at first are now resigned to it with Article 50 being triggered and the process seeming irreversible, OR even if people do still feel strongly about it, they feel even stronger about things like the NHS et al when it comes to casting their vote in a general election.
They'll probably gain councillors this week, but I do think a net loss of seats in the GE in England and Wales is very much a possibility (not sure about net losses in the UK as a whole because Scotland seems so up in the air).
I wonder if they, relatively, flop on Thursday, they'll think it's because of a tory polling boost caused by the GE announcement.
I reckon May will make a deal, the massive majority will be mostly nodding dogs loyal MPs. Her position in the negotiations isn't all that strong, the UK needs a deal more than the EU does.
I reckon: Exit fee in the tens of billions of €; treatment of euro-citizens same as native citizens after five years of residency, oversight is tricky but that can be finessed; agreement to have an FTA at undetermined time in the future; three year extension of current arrangements after 2019 with net payments the same as now (partially offsets the exit fee). Confidence level of this or similar deal - 75%.
Mrs May needs business and party grandees to apply pressure to make a deal. She won't lead on it.
My point, which isn't a complex one, is that voters don't usually change their voting behaviour because of scandals like this. They tend to ignore them at the next election/by-election. See Chris Huhne, Phil Woolas, for example.
In this particular case, they'd have even less reason to change their voting behaviour, because to do so would be tantamount to admitting that they themselves were hoodwinked by a few leaflets shoved through their doors. How likely is that?
I tend to agree on the local seat level.
What I'd query is how it may play out nationally. We were told May needed her big majority to bolster her position in talks with Europe, following careful soul-searching on a Welsh mountainside.
If the narrative becomes that this was dishonest, and it was actually that she feared losing a load of MPs to prosecution, people will feel they've been dragged to the polls under false pretenses by the PM, which is not good for her. Certainly, it reduces the force of the central Tory campaign message in the final days.
I reckon May will make a deal, the massive majority will be mostly nodding dogs loyal MPs. Her position in the negotiations isn't all that strong, the UK needs a deal more than the EU does.
I reckon: Exit fee in the tens of billions of €; treatment of euro-citizens same as native citizens after five years of residency, oversight is tricky but that can be finessed; agreement to have an FTA at undetermined time in the future; three year extension of current arrangements after 2019 with net payments the same as now (partially offsets the exit fee). Confidence level of this or similar deal - 75%.
Mrs May needs business and party grandees to apply pressure to make a deal. She won't lead on it.
Actually, not a bad summary. The Tory party will not destroy the people who fund them.
Last week I was told by someone I trust that Mrs May called a snap election not because of the expenses saga but because we were headed for the hardest of all Brexit and she didn't want to fight a GE one year after we crashed out onto WTO terms.
Recent leaks tend to confirm that.
Your source is absolutely correct. Particularly negotiating over the "divorce bill". As we know now, we can huff and puff, but if we cannot come to a compromise on this one, we will be crashing out into the WTO.
No matter who says what, Britain wants to have a trade deal with the EU. It does not make sense to have a trade deal with Australia and not with your neighbours and a market 20 times larger than Australia and not 12,000 miles away.
The majority is needed to make the big compromises. Otherwise, she would have been hostage to the "bastards" just like Major was.
Er, TSE is saying the opposite, he's saying TMay is taking us out to WTO, Tungsten Brexit, Car Crash Brexit, Chernobyl Brexit.
The Brexit Singularity.
Personally, I don't believe anyone knows anything.
I do not believe that for one second. Even that is what her gut instincts are, big business and, more importantly, the City of London, would be queueing up in Downing St. to tell her the horror stories.
A Conservative Party which ignores big business and the City ? Tell me another story.
Never underestimate the flexibility of the Conservative Party to adapt to circumstances.
If the only options are Fake Brexit and Granite Brexit then it'll be the latter which gets the nod. Followed, quite possibly, by another snap election to ratify it.
The other factors to consider are that fines have already been handed down. The 'electoral' implications have already been dealt with by the commission therefore surely? All that remains is whether criminal law has been broken and if there us public interest in pursuing it to trial. The CPS might conclude that, politically, the public interest would be prejudiced rather than served by prosecution as we are in an election campaign. Which would be handy for the blues.
There will be an almight f*****g row if they bottle this one.
I reckon May will make a deal, the massive majority will be mostly nodding dogs loyal MPs. Her position in the negotiations isn't all that strong, the UK needs a deal more than the EU does.
I reckon: Exit fee in the tens of billions of €; treatment of euro-citizens same as native citizens after five years of residency, oversight is tricky but that can be finessed; agreement to have an FTA at undetermined time in the future; three year extension of current arrangements after 2019 with net payments the same as now (partially offsets the exit fee). Confidence level of this or similar deal - 75%.
Mrs May needs business and party grandees to apply pressure to make a deal. She won't lead on it.
Mr May would be absolutely delighted to be able to do a deal along those lines. The problem at the moment is that the EU27 claim they are not prepared to discuss such a deal. That is the sticking point at the moment.
The only point where I might disagree with your outline is on the exit fee bit. It would be much more palatable for the PM to agree a long-term commitment for a few minor items (such as pensions), and a continuing transitional annual payment, reducing over time. That would not be unreasonable, since it's us that have screwed up their budgeting plans, but it obviously can only be offered for something worthwhile in return.
Just sold my book to.... Estonia. A surprisingly generous offer from the impoverished Balts, there. And I've been told by the Times I'm going to.... Ethiopia.
Brexit will be fine. All is good. Cheer up everyone. Diane Abbott is still trending at number 1.
*whistles happily*
I was listening to a podcast this morning about the 1868 conflict with Ethiopia. The Ethiopian emperor seemed to make mistake after mistake, and ended up at war with a country he had wanted help from ...
The "party of Remain" thing was always going to be a dud. Most Remain voters either didn't feel THAT strongly in the first place, or if they did feel strongly at first are now resigned to it with Article 50 being triggered and the process seeming irreversible, OR even if people do still feel strongly about it, they feel even stronger about things like the NHS et al when it comes to casting their vote in a general election.
Good point, a party of Remain has to explain how, and after Article 50 it is a lot harder. Already we see in the language used that the EU and Britain are becoming more distinct, and the more time that passes the more separate we become. Reversing Brexit gets harder by the day.
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
I saw that but on this rare occasion I think the Fisher forecast is likely to be off the mark for both the Tories and the LDs. I'd love to be proven wrong but I just can't see it. If it is anything close to that then the GE is potentially going to be a record breaker.
CON 400+ seats. That is what I need to see, betting wise.
So selfish, what about the country needs to see? Plus I need to see sub 400, betting wise.
The country needs to see an Opposition and that means Corbyn cultists jolted out of their dreamings by the mother of all shellackings. I can see no other way.
I don't like massive majorities, but you have a point.
Alas, shellackings seem to shock a party to its senses for about 48 hours. Then they revert to business as usual. Witness Obama 2010.
If the 48 hours are enough to dump Corbyn and nominate three sensible candidates - Starmer, Jarvis and Cooper, say - then that will be enough.
I reckon May will make a deal, the massive majority will be mostly nodding dogs loyal MPs. Her position in the negotiations isn't all that strong, the UK needs a deal more than the EU does.
I reckon: Exit fee in the tens of billions of €; treatment of euro-citizens same as native citizens after five years of residency, oversight is tricky but that can be finessed; agreement to have an FTA at undetermined time in the future; three year extension of current arrangements after 2019 with net payments the same as now (partially offsets the exit fee). Confidence level of this or similar deal - 75%.
Mrs May needs business and party grandees to apply pressure to make a deal. She won't lead on it.
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.
Bit overoptimistic for Labour I think, if Twickenham and Surbiton drop then I'd be VERY VERY surprised if Bermondsey & Old Southwark didn't.
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.
Unless their poll rating improves in the next 5 weeks (and it hasn't changed much in the last 5 years) I think they will struggle to get more than a dozen or so.
But I'd have thought Cambridge should be a reasonable prospect.
What I'd query is how it may play out nationally. We were told May needed her big majority to bolster her position in talks with Europe, following careful soul-searching on a Welsh mountainside.
If the narrative becomes that this was dishonest, and it was actually that she feared losing a load of MPs to prosecution, people will feel they've been dragged to the polls under false pretenses by the PM, which is not good for her. Certainly, it reduces the force of the central Tory campaign message in the final days.
Certainly it would be awkward. But it would be finessed by blaming the previous management, as per standard operating procedure.
Bear in mind also that if there any charges, it all becomes sub judice.
Just sold my book to.... Estonia. A surprisingly generous offer from the impoverished Balts, there. And I've been told by the Times I'm going to.... Ethiopia.
Brexit will be fine. All is good. Cheer up everyone. Diane Abbott is still trending at number 1.
*whistles happily*
I am not sure I would be so down on Estonia. Lots going for it, plenty of high tech business etc etc etc.
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.
Technically Richmond Park would be a Con Hold in that scenario.
FPT: Good luck to @Tissue_Price for his selection meeting tomorrow.
Do we know of any other PBers standing in the election - @NickPalmer said he is is out, and @TheScreamingEagles doesnt want the pay cut. @MrsB stood for the yellow team last time IIRC.
I am standing (again) for the Pirates in Vauxhall.
Ah yes, the PB Pirate! Good luck to you Sir, although I doubt copyright reform is going to be top of most people's minds when they cast their vote.
Having said that, in Vauxhall a vote for you would be a good way to help Kate Hoey get re-elected without voting Labour - that's your message for the pro-Brexit Tories and Kippers of south London.
I reckon May will make a deal, the massive majority will be mostly nodding dogs loyal MPs. Her position in the negotiations isn't all that strong, the UK needs a deal more than the EU does.
I reckon: Exit fee in the tens of billions of €; treatment of euro-citizens same as native citizens after five years of residency, oversight is tricky but that can be finessed; agreement to have an FTA at undetermined time in the future; three year extension of current arrangements after 2019 with net payments the same as now (partially offsets the exit fee). Confidence level of this or similar deal - 75%.
Mrs May needs business and party grandees to apply pressure to make a deal. She won't lead on it.
Mr May would be absolutely delighted to be able to do a deal along those lines. The problem at the moment is that the EU27 claim they are not prepared to discuss such a deal. That is the sticking point at the moment.
The only point where I might disagree with your outline is on the exit fee bit. It would be much more palatable for the PM to agree a long-term commitment for a few minor items (such as pensions), and a continuing transitional annual payment, reducing over time. That would not be unreasonable, since it's us that have screwed up their budgeting plans, but it obviously can only be offered for something worthwhile in return.
There is so much wriggle room in the EU framing document you could run a coach and horses through it. Likewise with ours.
The other factors to consider are that fines have already been handed down. The 'electoral' implications have already been dealt with by the commission therefore surely? All that remains is whether criminal law has been broken and if there us public interest in pursuing it to trial. The CPS might conclude that, politically, the public interest would be prejudiced rather than served by prosecution as we are in an election campaign. Which would be handy for the blues.
There will be an almight f*****g row if they bottle this one.
There will be a big row either way. Criminal intent and public interest are more nuanced than the black and white of returns.
After parliament dissolves tomorrow, they won't be MPs. It will be ideal for those who want the Tories out if charges are issued soon after 4pm next Thursday, when nominations close.
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
Correct. The courts have no discretion in the matter.
For the LD to lose net seats on Thursday would be a disaster for them. I was following the ?wisdom? of many on PB: that they'd do well in the locals on Thursday, and less well in the GE.
Although I'm sceptical of whether Labour are doing as relatively "well" as the weekend polls were showing, one thing I do think is pretty sure is that the LDs are flopping.
The "party of Remain" thing was always going to be a dud. Most Remain voters either didn't feel THAT strongly in the first place, or if they did feel strongly at first are now resigned to it with Article 50 being triggered and the process seeming irreversible, OR even if people do still feel strongly about it, they feel even stronger about things like the NHS et al when it comes to casting their vote in a general election.
They'll probably gain councillors this week, but I do think a net loss of seats in the GE in England and Wales is very much a possibility (not sure about net losses in the UK as a whole because Scotland seems so up in the air).
Yep, the LD campaign has been abysmal. Farron is a nice chap, but he allowed himself to be (unfairly) skewered on the gay sex stuff and has failed to get any room in the media for discussion of the points the LDs want to major on. Clegg has been rolled out today and the contrast between him and his leader is all too painful to see.
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
But he wouldn't be an MP.. they stop being an MP at midnight tonight..
I reckon May will make a deal, the massive majority will be mostly nodding dogs loyal MPs. Her position in the negotiations isn't all that strong, the UK needs a deal more than the EU does.
I reckon: Exit fee in the tens of billions of €; treatment of euro-citizens same as native citizens after five years of residency, oversight is tricky but that can be finessed; agreement to have an FTA at undetermined time in the future; three year extension of current arrangements after 2019 with net payments the same as now (partially offsets the exit fee). Confidence level of this or similar deal - 75%.
Mrs May needs business and party grandees to apply pressure to make a deal. She won't lead on it.
Mr May would be absolutely delighted to be able to do a deal along those lines. The problem at the moment is that the EU27 claim they are not prepared to discuss such a deal. That is the sticking point at the moment.
The only point where I might disagree with your outline is on the exit fee bit. It would be much more palatable for the PM to agree a long-term commitment for a few minor items (such as pensions), and a continuing transitional annual payment, reducing over time. That would not be unreasonable, since it's us that have screwed up their budgeting plans, but it obviously can only be offered for something worthwhile in return.
Most of that is in the EU negotiating guidelines. The main difference is that the EU wants its citizens to be treated in the same way in the UK as in the EU after Brexit. But that's complicated. It's simpler just to require no discrimination. I would push for that if I were the UK government. The critical one for us at this stage is the extension of operations. Everything else much less important.
What I'd query is how it may play out nationally. We were told May needed her big majority to bolster her position in talks with Europe, following careful soul-searching on a Welsh mountainside.
If the narrative becomes that this was dishonest, and it was actually that she feared losing a load of MPs to prosecution, people will feel they've been dragged to the polls under false pretenses by the PM, which is not good for her. Certainly, it reduces the force of the central Tory campaign message in the final days.
Certainly it would be awkward. But it would be finessed by blaming the previous management, as per standard operating procedure.
Bear in mind also that if there any charges, it all becomes sub judice.
The details of the individual cases do, but it's not sub judice to question the PM on whether she was strictly truthful on why she was having an election.
It's also not wholly helpful for it to be sub judice from the Tory perspective, as it makes it harder to run the argument, "well, this was all rather technical based on a silly misunderstanding about buses" and the headline is just "Tory MPs charged with election offences".
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.
Bit overoptimistic for Labour I think, if Twickenham and Surbiton drop then I'd be VERY VERY surprised if Bermondsey & Old Southwark didn't.
My assumption with Bermondsey is that Simon Hughes super-maxed out his 30-year personal vote in 2015 -- even when the previous MP is standing in future elections, the personal vote tends to drift away as people forget exactly what they'd done for the area when they were MP.
I was torn on Cambridge because on paper it looks like prime territory for a LibDem regain, but their local election results there last year were pretty poor.
The other factors to consider are that fines have already been handed down. The 'electoral' implications have already been dealt with by the commission therefore surely? All that remains is whether criminal law has been broken and if there us public interest in pursuing it to trial. The CPS might conclude that, politically, the public interest would be prejudiced rather than served by prosecution as we are in an election campaign. Which would be handy for the blues.
" The 'electoral' implications have already been dealt with by the commission therefore surely?" In what way did that happen?
The CPS might conclude that, politically, the public interest would be prejudiced rather than served by prosecution as we are in an election campaign. Which would be handy for the blues.
If those were the stated grounds, there would be a judicial review of that decision - and it would have to be heard fast.
The damage sometimes feels worse when you're in the middle of it than it is in reality. If a reversal were as a result of a clear rejection of the politics of Brexit, I don't see any barrier for us. It would be the perfect outcome for the EU - a humiliating retreat and then back to business.
Says it all really. williamglenn's priority is the EU getting what it wants and sod the UK.
A large chunk of the EU is the UK, and we are better off together. My priority is defeating Brexit because it damages our own interests. Sod the Brexiteers.
You Union".
It's this.
(BTW who is the gentleman in your avatar? He looks rather sad and I'm sure has an interesting back story)
I agree poor Mr Glenn would be better taking a chill pill and focusing on his gardening, but it's simply not true to say All of Europe is glad we're going, and wants us gone.
Elements within the Commission and Parliament, yes, for sure. Also EU Federalist politicians.
Butminds.
We won't. It's too late. But the sentiment is there, in the EU.
I still want us to go for something like EEA, and have my own fond delusion that TMay will take us there. Somehow.
That's a crucial distinction. We talk easily - and often in shorthand - of 'the EU' but there is no monolithic 'EU' view. Yes, the leaders signed off the negotiation terms in two and a half seconds or whatever it was but only because it'd all been negotiated beforehand.
And I think you draw the line in the right place. It's not institutions as such, though there are institutional mindsets; it's between the True Believers in Ever Closer Union on the one hand, and pragmatic politicians on the other. While the former are predominantly creatures of Brussels and the latter to be found in national capitals, in truth the division isn't so neat. All the same, there'll be plenty of politicians keen to put doing a workable deal with the UK ahead of visions of European Unity.
Who are the true believers among the national leaders? Merkel is a pragmatist, ditto Macron, ditto Rajoy. The Italians are far too focused on internal matters ot be that bothered on Brexit. The Irish will be rooting for a serviceable deal, the Nordics and the Dutch, too. In eastern Europe, there does not seem to be that much true belief around. So who are you left with? Luxembourg. I am not sure that is enough.
The other factors to consider are that fines have already been handed down. The 'electoral' implications have already been dealt with by the commission therefore surely? All that remains is whether criminal law has been broken and if there us public interest in pursuing it to trial. The CPS might conclude that, politically, the public interest would be prejudiced rather than served by prosecution as we are in an election campaign. Which would be handy for the blues.
" The 'electoral' implications have already been dealt with by the commission therefore surely?" In what way did that happen?
Well, fines being levied. What remains is whether criminal intent occurred and can be prosecuted. The implications in terms of votes can never be known. So the remaining fallout is purely criminal and I guess political if it shifts current opinion.
There is so much wriggle room in the EU framing document you could run a coach and horses through it. Likewise with ours.
So, the question is whether they actually want to talk turkey, or whether they are going to maintain the absurd fiction that the exit terms have to be discussed without knowing what we're exiting to.
I think Mrs May's next move, once she's got her thumping majority, and is thus free from having to worry about headbangers on both sides of the argument, should be to publish a comprehensive proposal including those transitional annual payments, with the explicit alternative of paying precisely zero if there's no commitment to a trade deal. It would of course be better to negotiate in private, but since the EU doesn't seem to be prepared to do so, we'll have to fight intransigeance with public reasonableness, backed by implicit crude threats in order to enhance its effectiveness.
I was torn on Cambridge because on paper it looks like prime territory for a LibDem regain, but their local election results there last year were pretty poor.
I'll be disappointed if we get less than 18.5 seats *innocent face*
The CPS might conclude that, politically, the public interest would be prejudiced rather than served by prosecution as we are in an election campaign. Which would be handy for the blues.
If those were the stated grounds, there would be a judicial review of that decision - and it would have to be heard fast.
I highly doubt they would be stated as grounds but will clearly be a consideration in CPS towers
For the LD to lose net seats on Thursday would be a disaster for them. I was following the ?wisdom? of many on PB: that they'd do well in the locals on Thursday, and less well in the GE.
Although I'm sceptical of whether Labour are doing as relatively "well" as the weekend polls were showing, one thing I do think is pretty sure is that the LDs are flopping.
The "party of Remain" thing was always going to be a dud. Most Remain voters either didn't feel THAT strongly in the first place, or if they did feel strongly at first are now resigned to it with Article 50 being triggered and the process seeming irreversible, OR even if people do still feel strongly about it, they feel even stronger about things like the NHS et al when it comes to casting their vote in a general election.
They'll probably gain councillors this week, but I do think a net loss of seats in the GE in England and Wales is very much a possibility (not sure about net losses in the UK as a whole because Scotland seems so up in the air).
Yep, the LD campaign has been abysmal. Farron is a nice chap, but he allowed himself to be (unfairly) skewered on the gay sex stuff and has failed to get any room in the media for discussion of the points the LDs want to major on. Clegg has been rolled out today and the contrast between him and his leader is all too painful to see.
Farron just feels incredibly lightweight and trite. The rightful leader of a party with 8 MPs. Barely more important Plaid Cymru.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
There will be some decent stuff on health and education in the manifesto, my advice would be to get onto it pronto. "We want to Remain and Jeremy Corbyn is useless" will get you so far but it's too thin to run a whole GE campaign on it.
That project of net seat losses on Thursday would be devastating - I know several areas confident of gains, that would be a real crisis of confidence.
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
But he wouldn't be an MP.. they stop being an MP at midnight tonight..
They'd be an MP on conviction (if they are standing and re-elected in June).
But I am not sure Mark is correct that they'd be disqualified. I thought the rule was disqualification if you're sentenced to 12 months or more (or indefinite detention). Huhne, for example, wasn't actually disqualified but fell on his sword as it was untenable. There may be something specific on this offence, but I wasn't previously aware of it.
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
But he wouldn't be an MP.. they stop being an MP at midnight tonight..
But if a disqualified candidate is elected then they can't become an MP so we would have a by-election presumably.
I don't think a winner being a disqualified candidates follows the precedent set in Bristol South East by-election 1961 anymore.
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
But he wouldn't be an MP.. they stop being an MP at midnight tonight..
I guess that someone can still be disqualified from the office of MP whether they were an MP at that moment or not.
If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.
They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
But he wouldn't be an MP.. they stop being an MP at midnight tonight..
They'd be an MP on conviction (if they are standing and re-elected in June).
But I am not sure Mark is correct that they'd be disqualified. I thought the rule was disqualification if you're sentenced to 12 months or more (or indefinite detention). Huhne, for example, wasn't actually disqualified but fell on his sword as it was untenable. There may be something specific on this offence, but I wasn't previously aware of it.
I think you might be disqualified if it was established that your election was fraudulent, but the new election effectively wipes the slate clean, assuming they follow the rules this time (unless disqualification from office were to be part of the penalty for any future conviction)
For the LD to lose net seats on Thursday would be a disaster for them. I was following the ?wisdom? of many on PB: that they'd do well in the locals on Thursday, and less well in the GE.
Although I'm sceptical of whether Labour are doing as relatively "well" as the weekend polls were showing, one thing I do think is pretty sure is that the LDs are flopping.
The "party of Remain" thing was always going to be a dud. Most Remain voters either didn't feel THAT strongly in the first place, or if they did feel strongly at first are now resigned to it with Article 50 being triggered and the process seeming irreversible, OR even if people do still feel strongly about it, they feel even stronger about things like the NHS et al when it comes to casting their vote in a general election.
They'll probably gain councillors this week, but I do think a net loss of seats in the GE in England and Wales is very much a possibility (not sure about net losses in the UK as a whole because Scotland seems so up in the air).
Yep, the LD campaign has been abysmal. Farron is a nice chap, but he allowed himself to be (unfairly) skewered on the gay sex stuff and has failed to get any room in the media for discussion of the points the LDs want to major on. Clegg has been rolled out today and the contrast between him and his leader is all too painful to see.
Farron just feels incredibly lightweight and trite. The rightful leader of a party with 8 MPs. Barely more important Plaid Cymru.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
There will be some decent stuff on health and education in the manifesto, my advice would be to get onto it pronto. "We want to Remain and Jeremy Corbyn is useless" will get you so far but it's too thin to run a whole GE campaign on it.
That project of net seat losses on Thursday would be devastating - I know several areas confident of gains, that would be a real crisis of confidence.
I saw that but on this rare occasion I think the Fisher forecast is likely to be off the mark for both the Tories and the LDs. I'd love to be proven wrong but I just can't see it. If it is anything close to that then the GE is potentially going to be a record breaker.
It wont happen and also Mark Senior would have a breakdown if it did...
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.
have topped up my 10 or under bet.
No chance that Greg Mulholland will lose his seat in Leeds North West. Tom Brake sounding a bit desperate in the Express giving an interview saying now its not all about Brexit.. Tories still odds against in Carshalton and Wallington.. still great value considering the area is knee deep in refuse at the moment because of a disastrous new waste contract rollout by the last remaining tier one Lib Dem council in the country. As ever DYOR
LOSSES Southport (to Cons) Carshalton (to Cons) North Norfolk (to Cons) Richmond Park (to Cons) Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS Twickenham (from Cons) Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons) Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons) East Dunbartonshire (from SNP) Edinburgh West (from SNP)
Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.
Bit overoptimistic for Labour I think, if Twickenham and Surbiton drop then I'd be VERY VERY surprised if Bermondsey & Old Southwark didn't.
My assumption with Bermondsey is that Simon Hughes super-maxed out his 30-year personal vote in 2015 -- even when the previous MP is standing in future elections, the personal vote tends to drift away as people forget exactly what they'd done for the area when they were MP.
I was torn on Cambridge because on paper it looks like prime territory for a LibDem regain, but their local election results there last year were pretty poor.
Last year's local election results don't help much, since the Tory party is almost dead in Cambridge. Labour runs the council and were polling much better twelve months ago before the whole Brexit issue (and the second leadership election) became such a fiasco for them. That is why this week's locals will actually tell us quite a lot, in places like Cambridge.
FWIW, I expect we'll achieve (at the very least) a slimmed down FTA on goods, because it is an exclusive EU competence that can be agreed via QMV and the trade deficit is so clearly in the EU's favour that they'd be silly not to do so. I'm more relaxed about customs checks and rules-of-origin rules because, whilst bureaucratic, so much of it is digital and electronic these days.
The more interesting part will be what happens to heavily integrated pan-European networks, such as energy, transport and communications, where the scope for disruption is greater.
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
But he wouldn't be an MP.. they stop being an MP at midnight tonight..
They'd be an MP on conviction (if they are standing and re-elected in June).
But I am not sure Mark is correct that they'd be disqualified. I thought the rule was disqualification if you're sentenced to 12 months or more (or indefinite detention). Huhne, for example, wasn't actually disqualified but fell on his sword as it was untenable. There may be something specific on this offence, but I wasn't previously aware of it.
I think you might be disqualified if it was established that your election was fraudulent, but the new election effectively wipes the slate clean, assuming they follow the rules this time (unless disqualification from office were to be part of the penalty for any future conviction)
That's a good contributing reason then for calling the election.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
Of all suggestions the idea that the Lib Dems could gain under First Past the Post by splitting is the oddest to suggest the least.
There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.
No chance that Greg Mulholland will lose his seat in Leeds North West. Tom Brake sounding a bit desperate in the Express giving an interview saying now its not all about Brexit.. Tories still odds against in Carshalton and Wallington.. still great value considering the area is knee deep in refuse at the moment because of a disastrous new waste contract rollout by the last remaining tier one Lib Dem council in the country. As ever DYOR
You were (very) bullish Lib Dems in 2015 iirc. Carshalton definitely very vulnerable I'd agree.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
Of all suggestions the idea that the Lib Dems could gain under First Past the Post by splitting is the oddest to suggest the least.
There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.
+1. Suggesting that the most united of our political parties - both generally and on the principal issue of the day - might split is absurd.
Farron just feels incredibly lightweight and trite. The rightful leader of a party with 8 MPs. Barely more important Plaid Cymru.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
There is no party in the UK right now on an internationalist, outward looking and liberal ticket of the style of Blair, Cameron, Clegg, Macron, Rutte etc. Not even the Lib Dems. That means a considerable chunk of voters without a home. The Lib Dems would seem the best placed to address that market.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
Of all suggestions the idea that the Lib Dems could gain under First Past the Post by splitting is the oddest to suggest the least.
There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.
How about: 1. Labour get trashed at the GE 2. LibDems go backwards too! 3. Corbyn refuses to resign or the members elect McMao/Abbot/another Tory plant as leader 4. The remaining Labour MPs agree to cross the floor to the LibDems if they will change the party's name 5. SDP2 is born 6. Labour is dead.
Ian Warren: ICM: Based on first two weeks, have your chances of voting Lib Dem gone up or down? Up: 10% Down: 17% Stayed the same: 59% Net: -7
That must be a worry for the Lib Dems - when you think about it their policy on the EU is becoming unrealistic and they look like they may suffer for it - though I still think they will do OK on Thursday
Sky news just coming on destroying Abbott - it has been featured all day on both Sky and BBC and Sky calling it a car crash
There is so much wriggle room in the EU framing document you could run a coach and horses through it. Likewise with ours.
So, the question is whether they actually want to talk turkey, or whether they are going to maintain the absurd fiction that the exit terms have to be discussed without knowing what we're exiting to.
I think Mrs May's next move, once she's got her thumping majority, and is thus free from having to worry about headbangers on both sides of the argument, should be to publish a comprehensive proposal including those transitional annual payments, with the explicit alternative of paying precisely zero if there's no commitment to a trade deal. It would of course be better to negotiate in private, but since the EU doesn't seem to be prepared to do so, we'll have to fight intransigeance with public reasonableness, backed by implicit crude threats in order to enhance its effectiveness.
Some transparency from the UK government would be very welcome.
The people that really matter in the EU27 are rational and pragmatic. The framing document provides ample evidence of that. We are the beginning of a negotiation. Across the table is a party with a much stronger hand than us. All we have seen over recent days is evidence that it knows this. But as you have pointed out, while we lose the most from a rock hard Brexit, it will not be consequence-free for our EU friends. Everyone knows this, too. There are no rabbits to be pulled out of any bags, just lots of talking to do and much dotting of i's and crossing of t's. It is going to be incredibly complex and will keep lawyers in clover for decades. But the only way a deal will not be done is if one side actively wants that. And I just cannot believe this is going to be the case. Famous last words perhaps.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
Ever worry that what you 'need' to happen for your world view to become in any way mainstream might be a little farfetched?
I wonder whether Farage sat out the GE because he reckons he's more chance in Thanet South in a By Election?
Why would there be a by-election?
You know the procedure better than me, maybe there wouldn't be. I was thinking if the MP won the seat again in June, but was found guilty for offences relating to 2015 afterwards, he would stand down.
Unless there was a jail term involved, that's unlikely. It's usually the agents who are on the line for expense returns errors. There are suggestions that MPs have been investigated about the expense returns but how reliable that is and whether the MPs are themselves in the firing line have to be to some extent unknown.
Clearly, were the parliament still based on 2015GE results then you could easily see a court ruling that the elections were void in the constituencies concerned, if malpractice were proven. But that will no longer be the case irrespective of the legal process: all MPs will have their mandate from the 2017GE.
I may be wrong and have no time at the moment to look up the relevant Act but I believe that if an MP is found guilty of this particular offense disqualification from the office of MP is mandatory .
But he wouldn't be an MP.. they stop being an MP at midnight tonight..
They'd be an MP on conviction (if they are standing and re-elected in June).
But I am not sure Mark is correct that they'd be disqualified. I thought the rule was disqualification if you're sentenced to 12 months or more (or indefinite detention). Huhne, for example, wasn't actually disqualified but fell on his sword as it was untenable. There may be something specific on this offence, but I wasn't previously aware of it.
I think you might be disqualified if it was established that your election was fraudulent, but the new election effectively wipes the slate clean, assuming they follow the rules this time (unless disqualification from office were to be part of the penalty for any future conviction)
That's a good contributing reason then for calling the election.
Personally I think it's the need for enough time for a transitional Brexit plus storm clouds on the horizon regarding the economy. The first rule of General Elections is that governments get re-elected if people are feeling positive about their economic circumstances. This pre-Brexit phoney war period is probably about as good as it is going to get for the UK economy over the next few years.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
I'm a Lib Dem myself, but for us to split as a "first stage" would be a rather ludicrous splitting of the atom in the current situation, I think. I also don't think a traditional liberal party would be particularly attractive to pro-European Tories, who would be more interested in a Blairite centre party (although probably avoiding the B-word!)
I can just about see an agreed takeover of the Lib Dems by moderate Labour MPs if Corbyn consolidates his wing's grip rather than taking the whisky and revolver in June. Doubtless some old-skool types in the Lib Dems would leave, go to the continuation Liberal Party, go to the Greens, or even hop over to Corbyn (it's a minority view but several members like him). But I don't see a Lib Dem split as a necessary or at all likely first step.
If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.
They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.
According to the Guardian's report of the ICM poll: "Some 49% of people backing Labour now say they are more likely to vote for the party because Corbyn is unlikely to become PM (against 43% who say it makes no difference, and 4% who say likely defeat makes them less likely to vote for the party." The implication is that fully half of the Lab 28% would disappear if there were any suggestion that Corbyn could win. His haplessness is already baked into the figures.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
Of all suggestions the idea that the Lib Dems could gain under First Past the Post by splitting is the oddest to suggest the least.
There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.
How about: 1. Labour get trashed at the GE 2. LibDems go backwards too! 3. Corbyn refuses to resign or the members elect McMao/Abbot/another Tory plant as leader 4. The remaining Labour MPs agree to cross the floor to the LibDems if they will change the party's name 5. SDP2 is born 6. Labour is dead.
Yes that is plausible (unlikely, but plausible) but point 4 meets my "it would rely upon Labour splitting" requirement.
Big G North Wales, the Lib Dems likely to vote figures are their own fault. Nowt to do with Brexit, its media coverage, which they have allowed Labour to dominate, you harly ever hear of the Lib Dems.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
Whilst the idea is very psephologically pure, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be a coalition of the above two camps. If we were under a pure PR system as in the Netherlands then we'd have the above two parties (D66 Democrats), (VVD Liberals) - but it'd be extremely counterproductive under FPTP so won't happen. Similiarly Labour would be in a far worse state if it was to split into the Corbynista/Moderate tendencies explicitly.
Big G North Wales, the Lib Dems likely to vote figures are their own fault. Nowt to do with Brexit, its media coverage, which they have allowed Labour to dominate, you harly ever hear of the Lib Dems.
To be fair to the media Tim Farron has been on regularly but his trouble with gay sex did not help but his position on Europe seems even more precarious, even pushing him into making the extraordinary claim be was an eurosceptic
If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.
They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.
According to the Guardian's report of the ICM poll: "Some 49% of people backing Labour now say they are more likely to vote for the party because Corbyn is unlikely to become PM (against 43% who say it makes no difference, and 4% who say likely defeat makes them less likely to vote for the party." The implication is that fully half of the Lab 28% would disappear if there were any suggestion that Corbyn could win. His haplessness is already baked into the figures.
Yikes and that is asking the 28% that question? That is extraordinary if so.
Big G North Wales, the Lib Dems likely to vote figures are their own fault. Nowt to do with Brexit, its media coverage, which they have allowed Labour to dominate, you harly ever hear of the Lib Dems.
To be fair to the Lib Dems have they allowed Labour to dominate? Seems more to me.nobody is interested in listening to them even when they try to speak. Hard to get around that.
Only a few weeks ago, before the election was called, there was talk about how the Lib Dems.were frequently the first to get a reply in often hours before the LOTO does. Since that was pointed out I've noticed it time and again but the problem is once Labour do belatedly get a reply out nobody is interested in what the yellow taxi party said first.
My English local elections seats forecast from polls Con +430 Lab -315 LD -30
That would be Labour losing more than half the seats they won four years ago, 538.
Aren't Labour only defending up to 25% majority in 180 seats or so ?
That'd imply very deep losses I think, unless Stephen is confused and giving UK wide figures...
Must include Scotland.
I've asked him to clarify, if that is England only then that looks utterly terminal for Labour to me.
His reply will be interesting.
I've found his reply in his blog - basically this is a GE poll transposition onto locals, which might come about as the situation is unique as Mike Smithson correctly identifies. He expects however for Rallings/Thrasher to be the more accurate model.
1) The standard of proof for the CPS is going to be much higher than that used by the Electoral Commission 2) The risk of political blowback to the CPS is enormous, particularly if there are acquittals. Therefore, I would only expect charges in the most clear cut cases. Certainly not anything like 30.
3) As the practice seems prevalent in a number of parties, I expect the prosecutions will include individuals from more than one party to avoid accusations of bias.
AIUI only the individual cases concerning the high spending by Tories were sufficiently serious to refer to the CPS.
All the debate about the outcome, disqualifications, by-elections etc. is missing the point, and I agree with others that these outcomes are very unlikely anyway.
All that matters is the potential for one day's negative headlines about the Tories, in the event that the CPS decides to progress some of the cases. This is by no means certain, however, and I take Mark's frequent writing about the matter as an attempt to influence the debate and atmosphere rather than an objective prediction of what is likely to happen.
Indeed, it sounds like a concerted effort is being made by the Lib Dems to keep this story in the spotlight, knowing it could become sub judice shortly.
Undoubtedly there are leaflets ready to go about 'dishonest Tories' in every marginal constituency, irrespective of whether anyone there was involved in the potential prosecutions. Lib Dems, of course, have never done any dishonest campaigning, not at all, ever.
If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.
They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.
If enough people vote Labour it throws Jezza a life jacket.
What level does Labour's vote need to fall to for his position to become untenable?
'Farron just feels incredibly lightweight and trite.'
Lightweight just about sums him up,a student union leader that has immatured with age. What a mistake not to have chosen Norman Lamb who at least had a modicum of gravitas.
If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.
They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.
According to the Guardian's report of the ICM poll: "Some 49% of people backing Labour now say they are more likely to vote for the party because Corbyn is unlikely to become PM (against 43% who say it makes no difference, and 4% who say likely defeat makes them less likely to vote for the party." The implication is that fully half of the Lab 28% would disappear if there were any suggestion that Corbyn could win. His haplessness is already baked into the figures.
Not only that, I think, Labour would get a pass from too much scrutiny since no one thinks they would be anywhere near winning.
A proper liberal party, that was economically conservative and socially liberal, might well appeal to me. The Lib Dems, alas, are utterly in love with the EU, which is something of a deal-breaker.
Incidentally, this points to the death of the Lib Dems altogether. Something that's gone unnoticed.
If they can't make headway with an issue like Leave/Remain, when they are the ONE national party with a unique and popular offering, then when can they recover?
I don't see it. Unless the Centre Left entirely realigns. The Lib Dems are moribund. They are going extinct.
I've come to the view that the Lib Dems need to split as the first stage of a proper realignment. The Democrats could become the main centre-left opposition, absorbing Blairite Labour, and the Liberals would be a minor party offering more traditional liberalism and possibly absorbing the homeless pro-European Tories.
Of all suggestions the idea that the Lib Dems could gain under First Past the Post by splitting is the oddest to suggest the least.
There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.
How about: 1. Labour get trashed at the GE 2. LibDems go backwards too! 3. Corbyn refuses to resign or the members elect McMao/Abbot/another Tory plant as leader 4. The remaining Labour MPs agree to cross the floor to the LibDems if they will change the party's name 5. SDP2 is born 6. Labour is dead.
I don't think this is likely, but nor do I think it's outlandish. It would give the new party an immediate infrastructure. Not a perfect one, not a nationwide one, but one with offices, employees, databases of voting intention, delivery networks etc. You're not starting from a kitchen in Limehouse.
There are some Lib Dem members who'd be up in arms about this but not, I think, a majority.
The objectors would be old skool, man and boy liberals. But remember how far the membership has changed since 2015. A lot of the newbies are pragmatic, internationalist centrists, rather than folk who bang on about local government reform and reminisce about the day they met David Penhaligon. And they want an alternative to the Tories.
while I find the conservatives repugnant and indeed described May as a trailer park Galadriel who succumbed to the lure and accepted the one ring when offered I have come to the conclusion that due to the brexit issue that no matter how bad I consider the current tory party my vote has to go that way
If, as usual, the polls are overstating Labour and/or understating the Tories... eeek.
They won't be, come the day. If it seems that it is possible to vote Lab without getting Jezza as PM, then more people than otherwise will vote Lab in order to water down the Cons majority. I would say 75-99 seats at 4s on betfair is a good bet.
If enough people vote Labour it throws Jezza a life jacket.
What level does Labour's vote need to fall to for his position to become untenable?
Comments
The "party of Remain" thing was always going to be a dud. Most Remain voters either didn't feel THAT strongly in the first place, or if they did feel strongly at first are now resigned to it with Article 50 being triggered and the process seeming irreversible, OR even if people do still feel strongly about it, they feel even stronger about things like the NHS et al when it comes to casting their vote in a general election.
They'll probably gain councillors this week, but I do think a net loss of seats in the GE in England and Wales is very much a possibility (not sure about net losses in the UK as a whole because Scotland seems so up in the air).
All the debate about the outcome, disqualifications, by-elections etc. is missing the point, and I agree with others that these outcomes are very unlikely anyway.
All that matters is the potential for one day's negative headlines about the Tories, in the event that the CPS decides to progress some of the cases. This is by no means certain, however, and I take Mark's frequent writing about the matter as an attempt to influence the debate and atmosphere rather than an objective prediction of what is likely to happen.
Mrs May needs business and party grandees to apply pressure to make a deal. She won't lead on it.
What I'd query is how it may play out nationally. We were told May needed her big majority to bolster her position in talks with Europe, following careful soul-searching on a Welsh mountainside.
If the narrative becomes that this was dishonest, and it was actually that she feared losing a load of MPs to prosecution, people will feel they've been dragged to the polls under false pretenses by the PM, which is not good for her. Certainly, it reduces the force of the central Tory campaign message in the final days.
CON: 47% (-)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via @ICMResearch / 28 Apr - 02 May)
If the only options are Fake Brexit and Granite Brexit then it'll be the latter which gets the nod. Followed, quite possibly, by another snap election to ratify it.
The only point where I might disagree with your outline is on the exit fee bit. It would be much more palatable for the PM to agree a long-term commitment for a few minor items (such as pensions), and a continuing transitional annual payment, reducing over time. That would not be unreasonable, since it's us that have screwed up their budgeting plans, but it obviously can only be offered for something worthwhile in return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expedition_to_Abyssinia
A conflict I'd heard of but never knew much about.
HOLDS
Ceredigion
Sheffield Hallam
Orkney & Shetland
Westmorland & Lonsdale
LOSSES
Southport (to Cons)
Carshalton (to Cons)
North Norfolk (to Cons)
Richmond Park (to Cons)
Leeds North West (to Lab - bit of a wildcard admittedly)
GAINS
Twickenham (from Cons)
Kingston & Surbiton (from Cons)
Oxford West & Abingdon (from Cons)
East Dunbartonshire (from SNP)
Edinburgh West (from SNP)
Leaving them unchanged on 9 seats overall.
https://twitter.com/TomBarker1815/status/859414774739853313
Differential turnout should help the Lib Dems and hinder the Tories in the locals, Brexiteers don't come out the woodwork for locals.
"Exit fee in the tens of billions of €"
I'm sure we'll be happy for them to pay us that.
Lab on 28 and ld on 8 though neither makes much sense to me, but it's stable around that margin.
But I'd have thought Cambridge should be a reasonable prospect.
Bear in mind also that if there any charges, it all becomes sub judice.
Having said that, in Vauxhall a vote for you would be a good way to help Kate Hoey get re-elected without voting Labour - that's your message for the pro-Brexit Tories and Kippers of south London.
It's also not wholly helpful for it to be sub judice from the Tory perspective, as it makes it harder to run the argument, "well, this was all rather technical based on a silly misunderstanding about buses" and the headline is just "Tory MPs charged with election offences".
I was torn on Cambridge because on paper it looks like prime territory for a LibDem regain, but their local election results there last year were pretty poor.
yikes.
In what way did that happen?
I think that's a pretty safe bet!
I think Mrs May's next move, once she's got her thumping majority, and is thus free from having to worry about headbangers on both sides of the argument, should be to publish a comprehensive proposal including those transitional annual payments, with the explicit alternative of paying precisely zero if there's no commitment to a trade deal. It would of course be better to negotiate in private, but since the EU doesn't seem to be prepared to do so, we'll have to fight intransigeance with public reasonableness, backed by implicit crude threats in order to enhance its effectiveness.
That project of net seat losses on Thursday would be devastating - I know several areas confident of gains, that would be a real crisis of confidence.
Up: 10%
Down: 17%
Stayed the same: 59%
Net: -7
But I am not sure Mark is correct that they'd be disqualified. I thought the rule was disqualification if you're sentenced to 12 months or more (or indefinite detention). Huhne, for example, wasn't actually disqualified but fell on his sword as it was untenable. There may be something specific on this offence, but I wasn't previously aware of it.
I don't think a winner being a disqualified candidates follows the precedent set in Bristol South East by-election 1961 anymore.
Tom Brake sounding a bit desperate in the Express giving an interview saying now its not all about Brexit..
Tories still odds against in Carshalton and Wallington.. still great value considering the area is knee deep in refuse at the moment because of a disastrous new waste contract rollout by the last remaining tier one Lib Dem council in the country.
As ever DYOR
The more interesting part will be what happens to heavily integrated pan-European networks, such as energy, transport and communications, where the scope for disruption is greater.
There is a possibility of the LDs morphing into a Democrats style party but it would rely upon Labour splitting not the Lib Dems doing so.
1. Labour get trashed at the GE
2. LibDems go backwards too!
3. Corbyn refuses to resign or the members elect McMao/Abbot/another Tory plant as leader
4. The remaining Labour MPs agree to cross the floor to the LibDems if they will change the party's name
5. SDP2 is born
6. Labour is dead.
Sky news just coming on destroying Abbott - it has been featured all day on both Sky and BBC and Sky calling it a car crash
The people that really matter in the EU27 are rational and pragmatic. The framing document provides ample evidence of that. We are the beginning of a negotiation. Across the table is a party with a much stronger hand than us. All we have seen over recent days is evidence that it knows this. But as you have pointed out, while we lose the most from a rock hard Brexit, it will not be consequence-free for our EU friends. Everyone knows this, too. There are no rabbits to be pulled out of any bags, just lots of talking to do and much dotting of i's and crossing of t's. It is going to be incredibly complex and will keep lawyers in clover for decades. But the only way a deal will not be done is if one side actively wants that. And I just cannot believe this is going to be the case. Famous last words perhaps.
I can just about see an agreed takeover of the Lib Dems by moderate Labour MPs if Corbyn consolidates his wing's grip rather than taking the whisky and revolver in June. Doubtless some old-skool types in the Lib Dems would leave, go to the continuation Liberal Party, go to the Greens, or even hop over to Corbyn (it's a minority view but several members like him). But I don't see a Lib Dem split as a necessary or at all likely first step.
"Some 49% of people backing Labour now say they are more likely to vote for the party because Corbyn is unlikely to become PM (against 43% who say it makes no difference, and 4% who say likely defeat makes them less likely to vote for the party."
The implication is that fully half of the Lab 28% would disappear if there were any suggestion that Corbyn could win. His haplessness is already baked into the figures.
If we were under a pure PR system as in the Netherlands then we'd have the above two parties (D66 Democrats), (VVD Liberals) - but it'd be extremely counterproductive under FPTP so won't happen.
Similiarly Labour would be in a far worse state if it was to split into the Corbynista/Moderate tendencies explicitly.
https://medium.com/@20sthredhead/i-translated-that-infamous-german-article-concerning-the-may-juncker-dinner-that-everyones-been-ac5f952b92e
Only a few weeks ago, before the election was called, there was talk about how the Lib Dems.were frequently the first to get a reply in often hours before the LOTO does. Since that was pointed out I've noticed it time and again but the problem is once Labour do belatedly get a reply out nobody is interested in what the yellow taxi party said first.
He expects however for Rallings/Thrasher to be the more accurate model.
Undoubtedly there are leaflets ready to go about 'dishonest Tories' in every marginal constituency, irrespective of whether anyone there was involved in the potential prosecutions. Lib Dems, of course, have never done any dishonest campaigning, not at all, ever.
What level does Labour's vote need to fall to for his position to become untenable?
Lightweight just about sums him up,a student union leader that has immatured with age.
What a mistake not to have chosen Norman Lamb who at least had a modicum of gravitas.
General election: Labour defence list on one page (small text size).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAUtJZzfnfYS_uarczPdRBJ1XgVNGfvyBU6Adz5YDGc/edit#gid=0
A proper liberal party, that was economically conservative and socially liberal, might well appeal to me. The Lib Dems, alas, are utterly in love with the EU, which is something of a deal-breaker.
There are some Lib Dem members who'd be up in arms about this but not, I think, a majority.
The objectors would be old skool, man and boy liberals. But remember how far the membership has changed since 2015. A lot of the newbies are pragmatic, internationalist centrists, rather than folk who bang on about local government reform and reminisce about the day they met David Penhaligon. And they want an alternative to the Tories.
I queried once before who I could vote for
while I find the conservatives repugnant and indeed described May as a trailer park Galadriel who succumbed to the lure and accepted the one ring when offered I have come to the conclusion that due to the brexit issue that no matter how bad I consider the current tory party my vote has to go that way