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.
I'm sure I'm over-egging it by saying it should be the first stage.
Electorally under FPTP, the logical strategic threat to May's Conservatives would come from a party that could appeal to, for want of a better term, Remainia. Not necessarily on a pro-European platform, but one that spoke to their overall cultural and economic interests. I'm not convinced that SDP2 would be that party.
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.
Didn't we do that already with the SDP in the 80s ?
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.
Lib Dem media coverage has been poor so far and when there was coverage, it was for all the wrong reason. Still, as the sole Pro EU party during a GE with Brexit foremost in many people’s minds, one would have thought there’d have been a significant uptick, it is their entire campaign strategy after all.
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.
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
I think it's sad that you couldn't see that leaving the EU undermines every single part of the rest of your agenda. You're a Ken Clarke style Tory in every respect other than your irrational dislike of the EU.
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.
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.
I was and I was wrong.. I am just talking abt the constituency I can talk about from a position of knowledge and canvassing. Added to that CCHQ have made C&W a major target seat which means a lot more resource will be going into it than in 2015 when it had no central help.
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
I think it's sad that you couldn't see that leaving the EU undermines every single part of the rest of your agenda. You're a Ken Clarke style Tory in every respect other than your irrational dislike of the EU.
william if the eu demanded a fee of 100% of our gdp you would be telling it us it is a good deal. Your credibility is zero
Mr. Patrick, hmm. Weren't you meant to be founding the Patrick Party?
I think the Partick Party policies and what I just said are one and the same! (I was toying with adding a nuke France policy - but on balance decided against it. Possibly to TSE's chagrin).
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
I think it's sad that you couldn't see that leaving the EU undermines every single part of the rest of your agenda. You're a Ken Clarke style Tory in every respect other than your irrational dislike of the EU.
Mr Glenn, you are the most hopeless debater I know. Nothing Patrick has said undermines his stated position. Every Anglosphere country in the world has managed at times sound economic policy, liberal social policies, openness towards global trade and welcoming outsiders either as visitors, temporary workers or immigrants - all while being outside the EU. Even the UK managed this prior to 1973.
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?
Well good question - but it does presuppose that Jezza and team have the capability to structure a defence against being sacked. Now of course who knows what the Lab membership thinks or will think, but that is to assign to him a degree of competence he has to date failed to show.
'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.
He's been even more invisible than most of the others, so I have no idea.
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.
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
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.
Didn't we do that already with the SDP in the 80s ?
The "beware the SDP" line is overused, in my view. It's taken as proof that a realignment can't work, but is rather based on the flawed position that everything that happened in history was bound to happen based on some underlying logic of the universe.
The SDP nearly did work. But enough moderate MPs (the young Blair for example) correctly believed the Labour Party hadn't reached the tipping point and could be saved; the leadership of the SDP weren't in the end united or strong enough; and the Falklands War ruined their 1983 narrative. None of that was inevitable, nor would it necessarily be repeated (although it might).
I'd also note that the proposed mechanism (or the rumoured one that does the rounds anyway) isn't like the Alliance's odd separate-but-together concept, and coupons for SDP or Liberal candidates in seats. It's a straight off Centre Party from day one.
Mark Pack and many other left wing / Lib Dem activists are really trying to push this , yet the (left wing) MSM don't appear to be interested. Why isn't it gaining any traction?
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
I think it's sad that you couldn't see that leaving the EU undermines every single part of the rest of your agenda. You're a Ken Clarke style Tory in every respect other than your irrational dislike of the EU.
But most of all I'm a democrat and I believe utterly that the UK has no place (and can have no place) in an EU superstate. I was delighted to be in the EEC but can not accept at any price 'ever closer'. We have our own demos. The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
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.
Didn't we do that already with the SDP in the 80s ?
Yes and it nearly worked. But the SDP failed to reach the tipping point of actually overtaking Labour and after Foot lost Labour elected Kinnock who took on Militant.
If Labour elects a Kinnock type figure this year a split is pointless. If they elect someone like McDonnell or Corbyn stays on then a split may work.
Any PB views on Lewes in Sussex. Was Tory forever. Then went LibDem. Then Tory again. Now a Tory / LD marginal?
It's next door to my constituency, and I know a bit about it. (My wife and I helped the campaign last time, although we mainly helped in Eastbourne).
I think it's probably a Tory hold. A lot of the LibDem vote was very much a personal Norman Baker vote, and he's not standing this time. Also there were a fair number of 2015 Kippers in the constituency. But obviously the LibDems will be trying hard, and they do have a reasonable size core university-style vote.
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.
Tories need to hammer away at the "only your vote can stop Corbyn" message.
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
I think it's sad that you couldn't see that leaving the EU undermines every single part of the rest of your agenda. You're a Ken Clarke style Tory in every respect other than your irrational dislike of the EU.
Mr Glenn, you are the most hopeless debater I know. Nothing Patrick has said undermines his stated position. Every Anglosphere country in the world has managed at times sound economic policy, liberal social policies, openness towards global trade and welcoming outsiders either as visitors, temporary workers or immigrants - all while being outside the EU. Even the UK managed this prior to 1973.
The UK is not 'every Anglosphere country in the world' - it's the UK. As we can already see from the social trends since the referendum, and anecdotes such as TOPPING's canvass report earlier, for the *UK* to close itself off from European politics is incompatible with achieving those objectives in the *UK* in the 21st century.
Mark Pack and many other Lib Dem activists are really trying to push this , yet the left wing MSM don't appear to be interested. Why isn't it gaining any traction?
Because it's a Westminster Village story that can't be compressed into five words.
That, and the fact that whatever happens in the investigation, the election choice will still be between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.
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.
I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.
Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.
I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
I think it's sad that you couldn't see that leaving the EU undermines every single part of the rest of your agenda. You're a Ken Clarke style Tory in every respect other than your irrational dislike of the EU.
But most of all I'm a democrat and I believe utterly that the UK has no place (and can have no place) in an EU superstate. I was delighted to be in the EEC but can not accept at any price 'ever closer'. We have our own demos. The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
skinned and dipped in lemon juice is too good for them, a cheese grater applied with gusto to their genitalia would be more inline with their offences
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.
Tories need to hammer away at the "only your vote can stop Corbyn" message.
Possibly next to some quotes about the IRA...only your vote can stop this man being PM....
And a follow up...McIRA....with the same slogan.
In fact you could have a different poster /ad every day, with the same slogan.
Ed Conwy SKY News fantastic economice expert has tried to cost Labours 10 000 police officers - if its 300 million as is being claimed then according to Ed there will be no wage increases for any police for next five years . Taking wage incresases costs and inflation into the mix the true figure would be around £350 million
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.
I agree with most of that, except the first line. Doing this in public or by leaking to favoured press only leads to a lack of trust for everyone involved.
Hopefully by the time the negotiations actually start properly in the autumn (after elections in France, UK and Germany), the sensible heads will be in the room and a pragmatic deal will be worked through that benefits everyone.
In the meantime, someone needs to shut up the alcoholic idiot and his friends in Brussels. They're not helping things.
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.
I really find it difficult to believe that the CPS is going to be influenced by the fact that May decided to call an election - nor should they be! May knew the conclusion of these investigations was imminent when she made her announcement.
Ed Conwy SKY News fantastic economice expert has tried to cost Labours 10 000 police officers - if its 300 million as is being claimed then according to Ed there will be no wage increases for any police for next five years . Taking wage incresases costs and inflation into the mix the true figure would be around £350 million
Does that include the £18,000 to train and equip each officer?
Mr. Patrick, the irony is that had we had a referendum on Lisbon, it would've not only acted as a pressure valve/line in the sand, it would've prevented our departure as Article 50 wouldn't exist.
Mr. Glenn, we're not closed off from Canada or the US or South Korea. Why would we be closed off from the EU?
Ed Conwy SKY News fantastic economice expert has tried to cost Labours 10 000 police officers - if its 300 million as is being claimed then according to Ed there will be no wage increases for any police for next five years . Taking wage incresases costs and inflation into the mix the true figure would be around £350 million
According to the Guardian, it isn't £300 million, Labour now say it is £800 million. They say it is £300 million per year for 4 years...but their figures say £800 million over 4 years...
Basically they haven't got a scooby.
I think they thought what is a good policy...more plod...how many...10k sounds like a good number...google "cost of a policeman"...search return...payroll cost is £30k a year...job done...fire up the tw@tter machine.
Forgot to read small print, that also says cost £15k+ just to hire them, let alone equip etc etc etc and that the £30k a year figure is 5 years old.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
Mark Pack and many other left wing / Lib Dem activists are really trying to push this , yet the (left wing) MSM don't appear to be interested. Why isn't it gaining any traction?
There's not a lot you can say until charges are made.
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.
This is absolutely and utterly not the case. I only know of one referred to cps and their total expenditure was below the maximum with or without the expenditure assigned to the national campaign.
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.
Didn't we do that already with the SDP in the 80s ?
The "beware the SDP" line is overused, in my view. It's taken as proof that a realignment can't work, but is rather based on the flawed position that everything that happened in history was bound to happen based on some underlying logic of the universe.
The SDP nearly did work. But enough moderate MPs (the young Blair for example) correctly believed the Labour Party hadn't reached the tipping point and could be saved; the leadership of the SDP weren't in the end united or strong enough; and the Falklands War ruined their 1983 narrative. None of that was inevitable, nor would it necessarily be repeated (although it might).
I'd also note that the proposed mechanism (or the rumoured one that does the rounds anyway) isn't like the Alliance's odd separate-but-together concept, and coupons for SDP or Liberal candidates in seats. It's a straight off Centre Party from day one.
You make some good points on this, though of course the perception it would be the same as before can be self fulfilling.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't
Dear me, what an absurdly partisan take from Mark. "we already know that there is a very strong case against many if not all of the thirty plus. "
Let's hope he's never a juror.
And 'the largest British political scandal ever'. No Mark, it isn't, it really isn't. Nothing, for example, like a very senior LibDem cabinet minister having to resign over the crime of perverting the course of justice. Or, for that matter, the curious incident of the dog dead by the roadside.
Or the wholesale and open sale of honours.
Or that one with the Russian spy, the aristocrat and the call girl.
Or Expenses.
Or taking the country into war on a lie.
Or lying about how the country was taken into war, after the event.
Or ruling without parliament / taking arms against the king.
If this is anything, it's nothing more than an accounting fiddle.
As an aside, what scandal would you nominate as the largest British scandal ever?
The one involving the King and the Frenchwoman and the... you know. Successfully covered up.
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.
I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.
Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.
I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.
The Bermondsey MP did sign the Corbyn nomination papers...
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.
I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.
Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.
I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.
I think Simon stands a reasonable chance. He is immensely popular in the seat, and has met almost everyone over his many years in office. There will be a remorse factor after his shock defeat less than two years ago. The new Labour MP is a moderate remainer-type but won't have been able to dig himself in that much during twenty three months, particularly with all the goings-on inside Labour. The Labour candidate will struggle with his past opposition to Corbyn. And the LibDems can target a lot of help on the seat whereas Labour has seats to defend all over the place. dYOR.
Mark Pack and many other left wing / Lib Dem activists are really trying to push this , yet the (left wing) MSM don't appear to be interested. Why isn't it gaining any traction?
There's not a lot you can say until charges are made.
Doesn't seem to stop C4 news (and the endless briefings they get from the CPS).
There are a few problems with this story, not just the article above but the whole way it has run - but also with this article in that some important considerations just dont seem to be there. 1. It is possible that the CPS will prosecute but they also have to consider the likelihood of getting a successful prosecution. The issue about tge Electoral Commission having a solid basis for a national fine is a bit of a red herring on that and indeed may push further the other way because that has indicated where liability lay and it has found liability with party HQ. Now unless there is smoking gun evidence that both the agents and the MPS were intentionally complicit then what we still have is their claim that they had clear advice from CCO that these were national expenses. 2. The decision then has to be whether or not to prosecute both MPs and agents or just agents. 3. The result may be fines not necessarily prison as has been talked up. 4. The Electoral Commission could have recommended that elections were rerun raising questions about whether or not the results were affected. 5. The CPS may be wary of politicised criminal cases especially after recent experience of celebrity cases and also those with longer memories may remember the cash for peers stuff of a few years back. 6. The story if it does get traction, could play a number of ways including a massive swing against the Tories to one of the other main parties or to a protest movement outside the mainstream. It may already be the case that those who see the Tories as tainted are already accounted for though it may make them more likely to turn out for other parties. There is also the possibility that this will be seen as an other establishment attempt to thwart Brexit noting point 5 above and so it may even play well for some Tory candidates. It may end up primarily having a localised effect so some MPS may lose their seats but not affect the national campaign. 7. It may still not get traction based on a recommendation to prosecute given that a decision to investigate and even to fine has not seemingly got far. The real hit would be if these cases actually got to court with significant public scrutiny of Tory election practices and this may also include additional context relating to the behaviour of those involved and the internal party investigation re alleged bullying. So potentially a big impact at that point. I suspect the Conservatives game played scenarios as part of the decision to go ahead.
Snap. I want dry-as-dust sound-money economic policy with an expansionary trade agenda / out of the EU / socially liberal and welcoming to outsiders.
I think it's sad that you couldn't see that leaving the EU undermines every single part of the rest of your agenda. You're a Ken Clarke style Tory in every respect other than your irrational dislike of the EU.
Mr Glenn, you are the most hopeless debater I know. Nothing Patrick has said undermines his stated position. Every Anglosphere country in the world has managed at times sound economic policy, liberal social policies, openness towards global trade and welcoming outsiders either as visitors, temporary workers or immigrants - all while being outside the EU. Even the UK managed this prior to 1973.
The UK is not 'every Anglosphere country in the world' - it's the UK. As we can already see from the social trends since the referendum, and anecdotes such as TOPPING's canvass report earlier, for the *UK* to close itself off from European politics is incompatible with achieving those objectives in the *UK* in the 21st century.
Just because you say it is so does not mean it's true. We can easily leave the EU and still be all the things Patrick says we should be. Just watch us do it. It is going to happen, despite your constant bedwetting.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't
If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.
'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.
While not wholly unfair, I wonder if you're making the mistake of thinking that the LDs are a party aspiring to government. As far as I can see, they're not. They're looking to stabilise and, if they're honest, drift up. Farron's seems to be quite a good fit within those parameters.
Where that strategy's come dramatically unstuck is (a) that as a result of Corbyn, the centre left has opened for them and (b) the GEs three years earlier than anticipated. Oddly, perhaps, Farron doesn't seem willing to aggressively exploit the opportunity at (a) and, perhaps because of (b) doesn't appear to have anything other than his one club to reach for.
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.
This is absolutely and utterly not the case. I only know of one referred to cps and their total expenditure was below the maximum with or without the expenditure assigned to the national campaign.
I believe the CPS has fourteen cases on its desk already.
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.
I'm sure I'm over-egging it by saying it should be the first stage.
Electorally under FPTP, the logical strategic threat to May's Conservatives would come from a party that could appeal to, for want of a better term, Remainia. Not necessarily on a pro-European platform, but one that spoke to their overall cultural and economic interests. I'm not convinced that SDP2 would be that party.
The lesson this election may teach us is that Remainers might have preferred to stay within the EU, think the decision is wrong, and are even angry about it, but, not enough to make them switch their vote*.
It's like the CND or the end of the Empire. Passions ran high for a minority on both, but most people simply cared about getting on with their day-to-day lives.
(*Incidentally, I think that applies to the Union as well - the fallacy of the SNP position in Scotland is similar to that of the Liberal Democrats in England)
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't
If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.
Mo it wasnt. Major join politicians pooh poohed the idea we were joining a political union, you wouldnt know because from your postings you are about 15 Most would have been happy with a common market and staying that way. I would have been. The fact is that most that voted yes then are voting no now after they have seen how things are going
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.
This is absolutely and utterly not the case. I only know of one referred to cps and their total expenditure was below the maximum with or without the expenditure assigned to the national campaign.
Same here.
And in the great bulk of cases, I believe there just wasn't intent. I guess the police, having no expertise of election law breaches and not knowing what thresholds to use, thought "safety first - send it to the CPS."
I fully expect the LibDems to scream "FIX!!!!!!" if there are only a handful of prosecutions.
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.
This is absolutely and utterly not the case. I only know of one referred to cps and their total expenditure was below the maximum with or without the expenditure assigned to the national campaign.
Same here.
And in the great bulk of cases, I believe there just wasn't intent. I guess the police, having no expertise of election law breaches and not knowing what thresholds to use, thought "safety first - send it to the CPS."
I fully expect the LibDems to scream "FIX!!!!!!" if there are only a handful of prosecutions.
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.
Tories need to hammer away at the "only your vote can stop Corbyn" message.
Possibly next to some quotes about the IRA...only your vote can stop this man being PM....
And a follow up...McIRA....with the same slogan.
In fact you could have a different poster /ad every day, with the same slogan.
I think that would be counter-productive. Jezza's past friendships have to be handled very carefully (I'm not saying there isn't an effective attack there).
It wouldn't take much for the attack line to be seen as playing politics with peoples' lives - those lost during the IRA campaign.
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.
I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.
Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.
I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.
Why is Abbott all over news but McDonnell campaigning under picture of Stalin is ignored?
Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.
For some reason hob nobbing with Stalinists does not provoke much interest, as compared to the nearest comparison. Even the Tories don't seem to be that heavy with it.
Didn't we do that already with the SDP in the 80s ?
The "beware the SDP" line is overused, in my view. It's taken as proof that a realignment can't work, but is rather based on the flawed position that everything that happened in history was bound to happen based on some underlying logic of the universe.
The SDP nearly did work. But enough moderate MPs (the young Blair for example) correctly believed the Labour Party hadn't reached the tipping point and could be saved; the leadership of the SDP weren't in the end united or strong enough; and the Falklands War ruined their 1983 narrative. None of that was inevitable, nor would it necessarily be repeated (although it might).
I'd also note that the proposed mechanism (or the rumoured one that does the rounds anyway) isn't like the Alliance's odd separate-but-together concept, and coupons for SDP or Liberal candidates in seats. It's a straight off Centre Party from day one.
I'd agree with all of that. The Alliance / SDP could have been a success but for an unfortunate sequence of events.
Firstly, and perhaps most critically, Healey defeated Benn in 1981: only just, but 'only just' was enough. That election proved that there was a sensible Labour still worth saving and undoubtedly kept a goodly number of centre-left activists and MPs on board. Peter Mandelson identifies that election as the moment he decided not to jump ship.
Secondly, the Falklands Effect. The psephological consequences of the Falklands are usually remembered in terms of the Tory Party, which shot up from the high 20s around the turn of 1981-2 up to the high 40s by the beginning of May. What's less well remembered is that the biggest loser in that swing was not Labour (who dropped only from the low 30s to the high 20s), but the Alliance, which had been polling in the 40s and 10 points clear, and which lost nearly half its vote share and fell from first to third.
And thirdly, the 1983 landslide cost Tony Benn his seat. Had he remained an MP, he would have been the flagbearer again of the hard left in the leadership election to replace Foot and might have won. Had he done so, Labour would have backed the NUM outright in 1984-5, failed to begin the reform process, taken little if no action against Militant and, consequently, pushed the moderates out one way or another.
There is only space under FPTP (and, generally, other electoral systems), for two main parties or coalitions. For the SDP to have thrived, they would have had to have pushed Labour to the fringes and reduced them to a third-party status. And yet that's very nearly the course Labour chose for itself anyway.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't
If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.
Mo it wasnt. Major join politicians pooh poohed the idea we were joining a political union, you wouldnt know because from your postings you are about 15
Heath's whole argument leading up to the referendum was that the Community was about moving beyond the nation state. This was from a prime-time TV debate the Saturday before the vote:
What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.
Looking at all these polls the story of the election so far is that the Lib Dems can't crack an egg never mind a major breakthrough with the voters so far.
They are at 10-11% in a lot of these polls and they scored just short of 8% in 2015 when they were crapped upon by the British public who obviously didn't appreciate them for what a fine bunch they are.
We all knew about Corbyn, the useless beard stroker that he is, but that is poor for the Liub Dems if it is borne out on polling day.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't
If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.
Mo it wasnt. Major join politicians pooh poohed the idea we were joining a political union, you wouldnt know because from your postings you are about 15
Heath's whole argument leading up to the referendum was that the Community was about moving beyond the nation state. This was from a prime-time TV debate the Saturday before the vote:
What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.
Looking at all these polls the story of the election so far is that the Lib Dems can't crack an egg never mind a major breakthrough with the voters so far.
They are at 10-11% in a lot of these polls and they scored just short of 8% in 2015 when they were crapped upon by the British public who obviously didn't appreciate them for what a fine bunch they are.
We all knew about Corbyn, the useless beard stroker that he is, but that is poor for the Liub Dems if it is borne out on polling day.
Their refusal to accept the referendum result is stifling their recovery.
Why is Abbott all over news but McDonnell campaigning under picture of Stalin is ignored?
Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.
For some reason hob nobbing with Stalinists does not provoke much interest, as compared to the nearest comparison. Even the Tories don't seem to be that heavy with it.
Memories are short and it's a sad fact that one of the worst human beings that ever lived is now seen by the public (in the West, anyway) as rather comical.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't
If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.
Mo it wasnt. Major join politicians pooh poohed the idea we were joining a political union, you wouldnt know because from your postings you are about 15
Heath's whole argument leading up to the referendum was that the Community was about moving beyond the nation state. This was from a prime-time TV debate the Saturday before the vote:
What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.
A tv debate that a mere 9 million watched
Indeed - higher ratings that any debate in the recent referendum campaign. Perhaps the general public was better informed back then?
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.
I can't see Leeds NW going Lab. It's a Remain facing constituency, and Greg had a pretty good lead over Labour.
I can't see Kingston & Surbiton going Yellow either.
And if you're going to use local defences to say that the LDs won't gain Cambridge, then you need to point to the LDs in Southport last year where they were up 7% on their 2012 vote share while the Conservatives fell back.
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.
I said this more than a week back. In my opinion, LDs have zero chance of regaining Bermondsey.
Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.
I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.
The Bermondsey MP did sign the Corbyn nomination papers...
Mr. Patrick, the irony is that had we had a referendum on Lisbon, it would've not only acted as a pressure valve/line in the sand, it would've prevented our departure as Article 50 wouldn't exist.
Mr. Glenn, we're not closed off from Canada or the US or South Korea. Why would we be closed off from the EU?
Erm...if we'd had referendums on Maastricht and Lisbon there: 1. Would have been no new treaties coz we'd block 'em 2. Unless the EO offered formally a 2-speed EU 3. In which case we'd be trading but outside politics 4. And not talking about Brexit 5. The dumb fuckers
'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 the Lib Dems had a leader like Ashdown now, Labour might be polling in the teens and in third place.
Really crappy behavior by the Tories. You don't win elections by cheating.
Will it matter? Dunno.
Having read the section on the battle bus, the report identifies a failure to clearly demarcated between national and local electioneering by the battle bus. But the talk is in terms of risk. Additionally the report notes that other campaigns had battle bus campaigns of a similar type but not of the same size. I would say
1. That the commission's report makes individual cases look very weak indeed. 2. It probably raises bigger questions about election funding that would be better served with recommendations and changes agreed cross party.
Why is Abbott all over news but McDonnell campaigning under picture of Stalin is ignored?
Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.
For some reason hob nobbing with Stalinists does not provoke much interest, as compared to the nearest comparison. Even the Tories don't seem to be that heavy with it.
Our willingness to call out Stalin for his terrible crimes is forever hampered by our wartime alliance with him and by the fact that without him WWII might well not have been won.
Looking at all these polls the story of the election so far is that the Lib Dems can't crack an egg never mind a major breakthrough with the voters so far.
They are at 10-11% in a lot of these polls and they scored just short of 8% in 2015 when they were crapped upon by the British public who obviously didn't appreciate them for what a fine bunch they are.
We all knew about Corbyn, the useless beard stroker that he is, but that is poor for the Liub Dems if it is borne out on polling day.
Their refusal to accept the referendum result is stifling their recovery.
They accept it, and want us in the single market and a second referendum. It is a perfectly coherent strategy but they sadly have lost credibility since the coalition and I can't see them getting it back. They are being treated as inferior goods.
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.
I can't see Leeds NW going Lab. It's a Remain facing constituency, and Greg had a pretty good lead over Labour.
I can't see Kingston & Surbiton going Yellow either.
And if you're going to use local defences to say that the LDs won't gain Cambridge, then you need to point to the LDs in Southport last year where they were up 7% on their 2012 vote share while the Conservatives fell back.
Oxford West and Abingdon needs some special pleading to make that a LibDems gain. 9,500 Tory majority - and 4,000 UKIP to plunder.
Mr. Patrick, the irony is that had we had a referendum on Lisbon, it would've not only acted as a pressure valve/line in the sand, it would've prevented our departure as Article 50 wouldn't exist.
Mr. Glenn, we're not closed off from Canada or the US or South Korea. Why would we be closed off from the EU?
Erm...if we'd had referendums on Maastricht and Lisbon there: 1. Would have been no new treaties coz we'd block 'em 2. Unless the EO offered formally a 2-speed EU 3. In which case we'd be trading but outside politics 4. And not talking about Brexit 5. The dumb fuckers
If we'd had a referendum on Maastricht it would have been won by Yes, and given that Thatcher would have likely been actively campaigning for No, would have provided the cathartic public defeat that the party denied her and drained the poison that infected the Eurosceptic right ever since.
Yokel: the only caveat to your esteemed & wise piece is that the overall percentage is not what will determine their performance, it is whether they gain any seats and if so how many. Up to now they have not got any act together, they need to up their game, get more publicity etc. What we do not know is what they are doing in their target seats, Thursday may tell us a bit more. But yes their poll% should be higher, but up to now that has been their fault not the voters.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
In retrospect if Major had not got the Euro opt-out and had to put it to a referendum which would have forced Labour to drop their opposition for opposition's sake, I think we'd have had much healthier politics in the period from 1990-2005 and avoided both the wilderness years for the Tories, and also the bitterness against the EU project.
the bitterness about the eu project is we were never asked if we wanted to be part of it, the referendum result says we don't
If you read the debates from the 60s and 70s you will see that the former claim is false. It was discussed very openly, and selective quoting to try to prove that the wool was pulled over people's eyes is thoroughly dishonest.
Mo it wasnt. Major join politicians pooh poohed the idea we were joining a political union, you wouldnt know because from your postings you are about 15
Heath's whole argument leading up to the referendum was that the Community was about moving beyond the nation state. This was from a prime-time TV debate the Saturday before the vote:
What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.
A tv debate that a mere 9 million watched
Indeed - higher ratings that any debate in the recent referendum campaign. Perhaps the general public was better informed back then?
9 million equates to about the people who voted no, prove that most of those watching the debate didn't go no fuck off we dont want any part of that
Comments
Electorally under FPTP, the logical strategic threat to May's Conservatives would come from a party that could appeal to, for want of a better term, Remainia. Not necessarily on a pro-European platform, but one that spoke to their overall cultural and economic interests. I'm not convinced that SDP2 would be that party.
There's 1.11 available to lay on the majority, and 1.06 to lay on Con Most Seats, we need more people to bet against the Tories!
Lay (Bet Against)
Jeremy Corbyn 9.20 £100.00 £920.00
Was just saying odds against is value that's all
I've just skimmed the electoral commission report;
http://www.markpack.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/google-document-embedder/load.php?d=http://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2017/03/Electoral-Commission-report-into-Conservative-Party-election-expenses.pdf
Really crappy behavior by the Tories. You don't win elections by cheating.
Will it matter? Dunno.
The SDP nearly did work. But enough moderate MPs (the young Blair for example) correctly believed the Labour Party hadn't reached the tipping point and could be saved; the leadership of the SDP weren't in the end united or strong enough; and the Falklands War ruined their 1983 narrative. None of that was inevitable, nor would it necessarily be repeated (although it might).
I'd also note that the proposed mechanism (or the rumoured one that does the rounds anyway) isn't like the Alliance's odd separate-but-together concept, and coupons for SDP or Liberal candidates in seats. It's a straight off Centre Party from day one.
The absolute tragedy of Uk / EU politics has been the refusal of our politicians to get the public's buy-in at every stage. We should have had referendums at Maastricht and at Lisbon. Major and Brown should be skinned and dipped in lemon juice.
If Labour elects a Kinnock type figure this year a split is pointless. If they elect someone like McDonnell or Corbyn stays on then a split may work.
I think it's probably a Tory hold. A lot of the LibDem vote was very much a personal Norman Baker vote, and he's not standing this time. Also there were a fair number of 2015 Kippers in the constituency. But obviously the LibDems will be trying hard, and they do have a reasonable size core university-style vote.
I should have a better feel in a few days.
Greens run, UKIP don't = Tory Hold
Neither or both run = Tory Hold
UKIP run, Greens don't = Lib Dem Gain.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/theresa-may-awkwardly-eating-chips-could-be-2017s-bacon-sandwich
That, and the fact that whatever happens in the investigation, the election choice will still be between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.
Bermondsey is not a LD seat. They won it on the back of a infamous by-election by playing the gay card. However, Hughes was a diligent local MP who kept the seat for years and years. But time ultimately wins. It is like Wimbledon being relegated from the Premier League. Once that happens, it cannot be reversed. They are not like Newcastle United.
I do not know what is happening in Cambridge or other Lib Dem seats in the South West. But LD will be expected to be challengers in those sort of seats. Bermondsey is not that kind of a seat. The only caveat could be if the new MP is very unpopular. I have not heard anything od that sort.
And a follow up...McIRA....with the same slogan.
In fact you could have a different poster /ad every day, with the same slogan.
Hopefully by the time the negotiations actually start properly in the autumn (after elections in France, UK and Germany), the sensible heads will be in the room and a pragmatic deal will be worked through that benefits everyone.
In the meantime, someone needs to shut up the alcoholic idiot and his friends in Brussels. They're not helping things.
My coat?
Mr. Glenn, we're not closed off from Canada or the US or South Korea. Why would we be closed off from the EU?
Basically they haven't got a scooby.
I think they thought what is a good policy...more plod...how many...10k sounds like a good number...google "cost of a policeman"...search return...payroll cost is £30k a year...job done...fire up the tw@tter machine.
Forgot to read small print, that also says cost £15k+ just to hire them, let alone equip etc etc etc and that the £30k a year figure is 5 years old.
It would be a misfortune if Corbyn fell in the Thames. It would be a calamity if someone fished him out.
[This talk of Disraeli reminded me of his jest, paraphrased above, at Gladstone's expense].
Where that strategy's come dramatically unstuck is (a) that as a result of Corbyn, the centre left has opened for them and (b) the GEs three years earlier than anticipated. Oddly, perhaps, Farron doesn't seem willing to aggressively exploit the opportunity at (a) and, perhaps because of (b) doesn't appear to have anything other than his one club to reach for.
This is what a good shave can do for you.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154581307796482&set=a.10150257393061482.326669.704341481&type=3&theater
Mr. D, quite. Starmer started the nonsense with his self-aggrandising statements to the press.
On biggest scandal - Roger Mortimer and Edward II's wife? The claim William Marshal had a nocturnal rendezvous with the wife of Young King Henry?
All that springs to mind. Modern history isn't my forte.
It's like the CND or the end of the Empire. Passions ran high for a minority on both, but most people simply cared about getting on with their day-to-day lives.
(*Incidentally, I think that applies to the Union as well - the fallacy of the SNP position in Scotland is similar to that of the Liberal Democrats in England)
Most would have been happy with a common market and staying that way. I would have been. The fact is that most that voted yes then are voting no now after they have seen how things are going
And in the great bulk of cases, I believe there just wasn't intent. I guess the police, having no expertise of election law breaches and not knowing what thresholds to use, thought "safety first - send it to the CPS."
I fully expect the LibDems to scream "FIX!!!!!!" if there are only a handful of prosecutions.
Surely the latter is just as newsworthy.
Completely Off-topic. Anyone know why BBC news articles "most read" now only shows links to 28 April?
They seem out-of-date. Or is it just me?
Eg, scroll down on this article, and look at the list of Most Popular:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39775693
It wouldn't take much for the attack line to be seen as playing politics with peoples' lives - those lost during the IRA campaign.
Firstly, and perhaps most critically, Healey defeated Benn in 1981: only just, but 'only just' was enough. That election proved that there was a sensible Labour still worth saving and undoubtedly kept a goodly number of centre-left activists and MPs on board. Peter Mandelson identifies that election as the moment he decided not to jump ship.
Secondly, the Falklands Effect. The psephological consequences of the Falklands are usually remembered in terms of the Tory Party, which shot up from the high 20s around the turn of 1981-2 up to the high 40s by the beginning of May. What's less well remembered is that the biggest loser in that swing was not Labour (who dropped only from the low 30s to the high 20s), but the Alliance, which had been polling in the 40s and 10 points clear, and which lost nearly half its vote share and fell from first to third.
And thirdly, the 1983 landslide cost Tony Benn his seat. Had he remained an MP, he would have been the flagbearer again of the hard left in the leadership election to replace Foot and might have won. Had he done so, Labour would have backed the NUM outright in 1984-5, failed to begin the reform process, taken little if no action against Militant and, consequently, pushed the moderates out one way or another.
There is only space under FPTP (and, generally, other electoral systems), for two main parties or coalitions. For the SDP to have thrived, they would have had to have pushed Labour to the fringes and reduced them to a third-party status. And yet that's very nearly the course Labour chose for itself anyway.
What really divides us tonight in this argument is not the question of details of prices or tariffs, however important they may be individually. It is not really the question of jobs - they are vital for the reasons I've been explaining. What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation state, and those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us.
They are at 10-11% in a lot of these polls and they scored just short of 8% in 2015 when they were crapped upon by the British public who obviously didn't appreciate them for what a fine bunch they are.
We all knew about Corbyn, the useless beard stroker that he is, but that is poor for the Liub Dems if it is borne out on polling day.
Bunnies shall go to Paris!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
Edit: I did mean Stalin, not John McDonnell!
I can't see Kingston & Surbiton going Yellow either.
And if you're going to use local defences to say that the LDs won't gain Cambridge, then you need to point to the LDs in Southport last year where they were up 7% on their 2012 vote share while the Conservatives fell back.
1. Would have been no new treaties coz we'd block 'em
2. Unless the EO offered formally a 2-speed EU
3. In which case we'd be trading but outside politics
4. And not talking about Brexit
5. The dumb fuckers
If we're discussing backstabbing wretches, King John must be up there too.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Patrick, the more the EU tightened its grip, the more British support slipped through its fingers.
Non Story
1. That the commission's report makes individual cases look very weak indeed.
2. It probably raises bigger questions about election funding that would be better served with recommendations and changes agreed cross party.
Up to now they have not got any act together, they need to up their game, get more publicity etc. What we do not know is what they are doing in their target seats, Thursday may tell us a bit more. But yes their poll% should be higher, but up to now that has been their fault not the voters.
Thanks.