Labour's campaign manager on Newsnight talking about the party's stunning results in Liverpool, Manchester and Swansea.
Before long there may not be very much left of Labour beyond Liverpool, Manchester and Swansea.
This, of course, is something of an exaggeration. But you get the general idea. Labour's voter coalition is splintering, and the habit vote on its own may no longer be enough to help them survive in a lot of places.
Beyond that, you simply can't challenge for the opportunity to govern based mainly on the support of posh faux-Marxist metropolitans, students, public sector workers, the black and Muslim votes, and the very poor. The combined total of these groups isn't anywhere near sufficient to win an election. But the Far Left sect isn't about Government, of course. It's about protest.
If the Labour Party doesn't succeed in overthrowing and purging the deluded and malignant amongst its ranks, then its going to end up as a rump protest party. And goodness only knows how long it will take an alternative opposition party to grow strong enough to shove it out of the way.
Hard Brexit nailed on. Planning for it is sensible, as is warning the public.
The public have now voted for Brexit twice, once by voting Leave against the then PM's advice and today by voting heavily Tory even after May said she would take the UK out of the single market to control free movement and they will do so a third time in June, they don't need to be warned about hard Brexit, they are driving it!
A number of weeks ago I mentioned how the French Intelligence services occasionally takes a hand in elections and notably Fillon and Le Pen perhaps had their positions blackened by corruption allegations.
Wikileaks stuff on Macron is predictable, the French authorities knew about this possibility of running interference.
Unlike elsewhere, they will not take it lying down if they have a problem with it.
9GB of material! Including a purported huge new life assurance policy for Macron, taken out in March 2017. What are Brigitte's Jesuit friends up to?
Serious question: did Macron and his wife marry in church? Pope Francis, also a Jesuit, has been accused of not having been as anti-Le Pen as some would have expected.
I remember all those, largely leftist, idiots who went around praising Wikileaks for its fearless shining of light against the corrupt elites.
Not so f**king great now are they. All been taken for a ride the guillable mugs.
I love the way that wikileaks are trying to suggest that the leak has been timed to provide an excuse to put pressure on Russia. What a laughable prebuttal!
I thought it was hilarious!
I've had a riffle through two of the bundles. The Gemplus one contains stuff about Saudi and Ziad Takieddine, inter alia. Takieddine, who has been denied entry to Britain, accused Sarkozy of taking money from Gaddafi. But so far I haven't found anything in the bundle that refers to Macron.
Its worth revisiting some of the Tory candidates for gains in Scotland. Let's assume that the 3 border seats and Abderdeen West and Kincardine are nailed on. Where else?
Well in Perth and Kinross the Tories are now the largest party with 17 (+7) councillors to the SNP's 15 (-2). Pete Wishart's seat is certainly in play.
In Renfrewshire the SNP are 19 (+2) but the Tories have leaped from 1 to 8 with Labour halving. I think East Renfrewshire is certainly in play.
In Moray, Angus Robertson's seat, there is now 9 SNP (-1) 8 Independents and 8 Conservatives (+5). This is no longer a seat with a built in SNP majority.
In Stirling there are now 9 SNP (-1) and 9 Conservative (+5). Surely Stirling (Forsyth's old seat) is surely up for grabs again.
In Edinburgh there are now 19 SNP (-2) and 18 Conservatives (+7) and 12 SLAB (-9). Edinburgh South is looking a 3 way marginal as is Edinburgh West and, a bit more of a stretch, Edinburgh north and Leith.
The tories are now the largest party in Aberdeenshire at 23 (+9) compared with the SNP at 21 (-8). Aberdeen South looks a very realistic target.
In Argyll & Bute the SNP are 11 (-2) and the Tories are now 9 (+5) but the Lib Dems also gained 2 and any chance of a victory requires the mother of all squeezes on the Lib Dem vote. Not looking likely.
I would emphasise that all of these seats still require quite big swings from 2015 but the locals suggest that they are in play to a significant extent and their odds should really shorten.
The Conservatives are the largest party in East Renfrewshire now:
Disclosure: the Conservative candidate, Paul Masterton, is a colleague of mine (indeed, in the Glasgow office of the pensions team in which I am one of the partners).
Genuinely, how on earth does he find the time to do that? I know pensions isn't uncertain transactional in the sense of banking, capital markets or corporate but on top of 1800 hours and BD that's remarkable.
Why? At this point the EU are not treating us as equal partners. Should we waste a year and a half and then show them we are serious? Or show them that now and then sit down like grown ups and get down to business.
Very much maligned and misunderstood, but fundamentally a man totally unsuited to the office that in five weeks time, he will be seeking. John Major once said 'The electorate are always right'
Yes, I think this is fair. I admire his principles in many areas. In an insane world where Donald Trump is considered *more* acceptable by the international community as a world leader because he bombed the Syrians with no evidence, it takes some guts to not join those mindlessly banging the war drums. Again.
Why? At this point the EU are not treating us as equal partners. Should we waste a year and a half and then show them we are serious? Or show them that now and then sit down like grown ups and get down to business.
It would also show that the EU would have to offer us something better than that. The downside is that it will allow them to calculate more precisely how little more than that they need offer.
The 'Plan' has to be detailed enough to be credible and ambiguous enough to prevent precise calculation.
Burnham's performance is impressive given the disaster up and down the rest of the country. He carried almost everything. He even carried Cheadle constituency.
Was his Tory opponent so lackluster?
Burnham is to Manchester as Khan is to London. A decent Labour candidate in a Labour town.
Quite right. Simon was a shocking candidate who contrived to lose a Labour town. The Brummie Livingstone III and IV.
Put another way if Street had been Labour candidate and Simon the Tory they would have just weighed the Labour votes.
Burnham's performance is impressive given the disaster up and down the rest of the country. He carried almost everything. He even carried Cheadle constituency.
Was his Tory opponent so lackluster?
Burnham clearly polls above his party, like May, Corbyn polls below his. Labour made the wrong choice in 2015
Alternatively Burnham is popular now as a prince over the water precisely because he wasn't chosen in 2015.
C.f. David Miliband
Not entirely even at the time of the leadership elections David polled better than Ed and Burnham better than Corbyn
@SkyNewsBreak: French Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron's campaign says it has been the victim of a "massive and coordinated hacking operation"
That is a sort of implicit acceptance that what Wikileaks have is accurate.
On the face of it, that is a remarkable statement for Macron's campaign to make. They could say they are aware of allegations that they have been targeted by criminal hackers and they are investigating. Clearly more than one party are playing games.
Why? At this point the EU are not treating us as equal partners. Should we waste a year and a half and then show them we are serious? Or show them that now and then sit down like grown ups and get down to business.
It would also show that the EU would have to offer us something better than that. The downside is that it will allow them to calculate more precisely how little more than that they need offer.
The 'Plan' has to be detailed enough to be credible and ambiguous enough to prevent precise calculation.
Good point. Detailed and ambiguous enough... Tricky but hopefully doable.
Wales Labour policy is clearly to differentiate from England Labour. It is the only way of retaining any sort of presence this side of Offas Dyke. I will look in detail at the results in relation to the GE at some point, but my gut feeling is that Wales Labour may just do a bit better than presently predicted. Cardiff, Newport and Swansea in particular may just stem the tide a bit,against expectations.
@SkyNewsBreak: French Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron's campaign says it has been the victim of a "massive and coordinated hacking operation"
That is a sort of implicit acceptance that what Wikileaks have is accurate.
As someone who really wants the polls to be more or less accurate, with no shift before election day I can't wait until the media ban comes into place.
@SkyNewsBreak: French Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron's campaign says it has been the victim of a "massive and coordinated hacking operation"
That is a sort of implicit acceptance that what Wikileaks have is accurate.
As someone who really wants the polls to be more or less accurate, with no shift before election day I can't wait until the media ban comes into place.
They can't ban the internet though or people gossiping in cafes.
One thing I've learnt from these local elections is that we're probably going to have some very erratic results in the general election, with the Labour vote holding up very well in some areas and dropping like a stone in others. I did think that would happen before to a certain extent but now I think it'll happen even more than I previously expected.
@SkyNewsBreak: French Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron's campaign says it has been the victim of a "massive and coordinated hacking operation"
That is a sort of implicit acceptance that what Wikileaks have is accurate.
As someone who really wants the polls to be more or less accurate, with no shift before election day I can't wait until the media ban comes into place.
They can't ban the internet though or people gossiping in cafes.
But realistically there won't be time to circulate and find the rumours.
It will be. The EU are currently making some ridiculous demands which make any sort of a deal impossible. There biggest red line seems to be leaving the EU must make us poorer by there actions rather than being an opinion.
The problem is that if the plans are not seen as absolutely credible, there could be a market and business reaction which will undermine what she's trying to achieve.
Yes, absolutely. Something thought up after a long boozy lunch and drafted on the back of the fag packet will not do. Something that is serious is what is needed if at all. Now that it's been briefed though it will have to come out.
Cranking out the spin, I think, but there is only so much mileage you can get out of it. David Allen Green has an interesting think piece in the FT today: suppose you were a bitter and twisted Remainer looking to undermine Brexit and ensure it was NOT a success, how would you go about it? His answer - do what Theresa May is doing. I don't think he is quite right, but his logic is impeccable. I find Mrs May's attitude baffling. It's not so much she sets out to undermine the negotiations as she is totally uninterested in them. This suggests she thinks they won't make any difference because either she expects to do exactly as the EU says or she is just going through the motions before their inevitable failure. Neither makes sense. I can only think she is paralysed by indecision. Strange thing.
Burnham's performance is impressive given the disaster up and down the rest of the country. He carried almost everything. He even carried Cheadle constituency.
Was his Tory opponent so lackluster?
Burnham clearly polls above his party, like May, Corbyn polls below his. Labour made the wrong choice in 2015
The least surprising analysis of the evening. Albeit thoroughly accurate.
Burnham is still rubbish. The fact that he would be a big improvement over Corbyn merely shows how deep is the hole the Labour Party is in.
Burnham won every district in Greater Manchester, including Tory Trafford, he clearly has appeal beyond just the Labour core vote
That would be impressive even without a context when Labour was in meltdown elsewhere.
Burnham's first act on gaining office was also pretty astute, namely to refusing to make himself available when Corbyn came up to try and associate himself with such an overwhelming victory. Pretty humiliating for Corbyn, that.
It will be. The EU are currently making some ridiculous demands which make any sort of a deal impossible. There biggest red line seems to be leaving the EU must make us poorer by there actions rather than being an opinion.
The problem is that if the plans are not seen as absolutely credible, there could be a market and business reaction which will undermine what she's trying to achieve.
Yes, absolutely. Something thought up after a long boozy lunch and drafted on the back of the fag packet will not do. Something that is serious is what is needed if at all. Now that it's been briefed though it will have to come out.
Cranking out the spin, I think, but there is only so much mileage you can get out of it. David Allen Green has an interesting think piece in the FT today: suppose you were a bitter and twisted Remainer looking to undermine Brexit and ensure it was NOT a success, how would you go about it? His answer - do what Theresa May is doing. I don't think he is quite right, but his logic is impeccable. I find Mrs May's attitude baffling. It's not so much she sets out to undermine the negotiations as she is totally uninterested in them. This suggests she thinks they won't make any difference because either she expects to do exactly as the EU says or she is just going through the motions before their inevitable failure. Neither makes sense. I can only think she is paralysed by indecision. Strange thing.
It looks to me that the EU is the party trying to make the negotiations a failure from the off. I can't see that in Theresa May.
Wales Labour policy is clearly to differentiate from England Labour. It is the only way of retaining any sort of presence this side of Offas Dyke. I will look in detail at the results in relation to the GE at some point, but my gut feeling is that Wales Labour may just do a bit better than presently predicted. Cardiff, Newport and Swansea in particular may just stem the tide a bit,against expectations.
I think the opposite tbh. You may be able to differentiate in locals, but in 5 weeks we are voting for a Government not a local council. I reckon there could be value the other way. Supporting Carwyn's labour won't deliver a mandate for brexit.
Burnham's performance is impressive given the disaster up and down the rest of the country. He carried almost everything. He even carried Cheadle constituency.
Was his Tory opponent so lackluster?
Burnham clearly polls above his party, like May, Corbyn polls below his. Labour made the wrong choice in 2015
The least surprising analysis of the evening. Albeit thoroughly accurate.
Burnham is still rubbish. The fact that he would be a big improvement over Corbyn merely shows how deep is the hole the Labour Party is in.
Burnham won every district in Greater Manchester, including Tory Trafford, he clearly has appeal beyond just the Labour core vote
That would be impressive even without a context when Labour was in meltdown elsewhere.
Burnham's first act on gaining office was also pretty astute, namely to refusing to make himself available when Corbyn came up to try and associate himself with such an overwhelming victory. Pretty humiliating for Corbyn, that.
I expect also sweet revenge for Burnham after his humiliating defeat to Corbyn in the 2015 Labour leadership election, he is now Mayor of effectively England's second most influential city, Corbyn is heading for an electoral trouncing, you may ask who has come out better?
Labour's campaign manager on Newsnight talking about the party's stunning results in Liverpool, Manchester and Swansea.
Before long there may not be very much left of Labour beyond Liverpool, Manchester and Swansea.
This, of course, is something of an exaggeration. But you get the general idea. Labour's voter coalition is splintering, and the habit vote on its own may no longer be enough to help them survive in a lot of places.
Beyond that, you simply can't challenge for the opportunity to govern based mainly on the support of posh faux-Marxist metropolitans, students, public sector workers, the black and Muslim votes, and the very poor. The combined total of these groups isn't anywhere near sufficient to win an election. But the Far Left sect isn't about Government, of course. It's about protest.
If the Labour Party doesn't succeed in overthrowing and purging the deluded and malignant amongst its ranks, then its going to end up as a rump protest party. And goodness only knows how long it will take an alternative opposition party to grow strong enough to shove it out of the way.
But think of the moral purity of the party of EveryOneElseIsAnEvulTory.
That was because Callaghan had the option of a Dissolution. The effect of the FTPA was to remove that automatic option - but it did not interfere with the established precedent that a Government defeated in the Commons has to resign in the absence of a Dissolution!
It doesn't have to resign. It has to offer its resignation. Big difference.
It will be. The EU are currently making some ridiculous demands which make any sort of a deal impossible. There biggest red line seems to be leaving the EU must make us poorer by there actions rather than being an opinion.
The problem is that if the plans are not seen as absolutely credible, there could be a market and business reaction which will undermine what she's trying to achieve.
Yes, absolutely. Something thought up after a long boozy lunch and drafted on the back of the fag packet will not do. Something that is serious is what is needed if at all. Now that it's been briefed though it will have to come out.
Cranking out the spin, I think, but there is only so much mileage you can get out of it. David Allen Green has an interesting think piece in the FT today: suppose you were a bitter and twisted Remainer looking to undermine Brexit and ensure it was NOT a success, how would you go about it? His answer - do what Theresa May is doing. I don't think he is quite right, but his logic is impeccable. I find Mrs May's attitude baffling. It's not so much she sets out to undermine the negotiations as she is totally uninterested in them. This suggests she thinks they won't make any difference because either she expects to do exactly as the EU says or she is just going through the motions before their inevitable failure. Neither makes sense. I can only think she is paralysed by indecision. Strange thing.
It looks to me that the EU is the party trying to make the negotiations a failure from the off. I can't see that in Theresa May.
Hopefully without relaunching the tired discussions again, I don't think that applies at least to those actually doing the negotations for the EU, ie Barnier and Tusk, nor to Merkel as evidenced in her now notorious speech to the Bundestag
Labour campaign manager on News 24 " We've got a transformational vision for a Britain that is very different from the society we live in now. A fairer, more equal, more just society.". He then goes on to indicate the if they can get this message out they can win.
What does it mean. It's like they're speaking in code. They used to criticise Blair for being lightweight but as least he had an implementable programme.
It will be. The EU are currently making some ridiculous demands which make any sort of a deal impossible. There biggest red line seems to be leaving the EU must make us poorer by there actions rather than being an opinion.
The problem is that if the plans are not seen as absolutely credible, there could be a market and business reaction which will undermine what she's trying to achieve.
Yes, absolutely. Something thought up after a long boozy lunch and drafted on the back of the fag packet will not do. Something that is serious is what is needed if at all. Now that it's been briefed though it will have to come out.
Cranking out the spin, I think, but there is only so much mileage you can get out of it. David Allen Green has an interesting think piece in the FT today: suppose you were a bitter and twisted Remainer looking to undermine Brexit and ensure it was NOT a success, how would you go about it? His answer - do what Theresa May is doing. I don't think he is quite right, but his logic is impeccable. I find Mrs May's attitude baffling. It's not so much she sets out to undermine the negotiations as she is totally uninterested in them. This suggests she thinks they won't make any difference because either she expects to do exactly as the EU says or she is just going through the motions before their inevitable failure. Neither makes sense. I can only think she is paralysed by indecision. Strange thing.
My take is that she is Alexis Tspiras to Cameron's Samaras.
She watched the attempt to renegotiate the terms of our EU relationship by Cameron fail and mentally is refighting the last battle having determined that the mistake we made was not having a credible enough bluff. She thinks that if she closes down all of her escape routes, the EU will have no option but to agree to her terms because the consequences of not doing so will be too severe.
It will be. The EU are currently making some ridiculous demands which make any sort of a deal impossible. There biggest red line seems to be leaving the EU must make us poorer by there actions rather than being an opinion.
The problem is that if the plans are not seen as absolutely credible, there could be a market and business reaction which will undermine what she's trying to achieve.
Yes, absolutely. Something thought up after a long boozy lunch and drafted on the back of the fag packet will not do. Something that is serious is what is needed if at all. Now that it's been briefed though it will have to come out.
Cranking out the spin, I think, but there is only so much mileage you can get out of it. David Allen Green has an interesting think piece in the FT today: suppose you were a bitter and twisted Remainer looking to undermine Brexit and ensure it was NOT a success, how would you go about it? His answer - do what Theresa May is doing. I don't think he is quite right, but his logic is impeccable. I find Mrs May's attitude baffling. It's not so much she sets out to undermine the negotiations as she is totally uninterested in them. This suggests she thinks they won't make any difference because either she expects to do exactly as the EU says or she is just going through the motions before their inevitable failure. Neither makes sense. I can only think she is paralysed by indecision. Strange thing.
It looks to me that the EU is the party trying to make the negotiations a failure from the off. I can't see that in Theresa May.
Hopefully without relaunching the tired discussions again, I don't think that applies at least to those actually doing the negotations for the EU, ie Barnier and Tusk, nor to Merkel as evidenced in her now notorious speech to the Bundestag
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
Just watching Newsnight. Paul Mason thinks that calling lots of working class voters worried about immigration racist is the road to power. Wow.
To think this man used to be one of the leading economic presenters for the BBC....and also this is the stuff he says in public, what does he say behind closed doors!
How a music teacher ever got that Newsnight gig I will never know. People used to criticize two Eds Flanders for perhaps having been too close to New Labour politicians, but you couldn't say she wasn't extremely well qualified for the job.
Labour campaign manager on News 24 " We've got a transformational vision for a Britain that is very different from the society we live in now. A fairer, more equal, more just society.". He then goes on to indicate the if they can get this message out they can win.
What does it mean. It's like they're speaking in code. They used to criticise Blair for being lightweight but as least he had an implementable programme.
Actually I know what they mean. I'm not convinced people want that anymore.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Labour campaign manager on News 24 " We've got a transformational vision for a Britain that is very different from the society we live in now. A fairer, more equal, more just society.". He then goes on to indicate the if they can get this message out they can win.
What does it mean. It's like they're speaking in code. They used to criticise Blair for being lightweight but as least he had an implementable programme.
Actually I know what they mean. I'm not convinced people want that anymore.
I mean I understand it but it's all motherhood and apple pie. It's the whole Paul Mason Clive Lewis problem. The Tories are evil, you must be racist, rich or not car about other people to vote Tory. So much so that they don't actually need coherent policies - they think all they need to say is we oppose austerity and that Tories are heartless. Just think back to 1997 when they last got voted in, what a difference!
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
There is a basis to demand it. Switzerland is not part of the single market or customs union but does have freedom of movement which is linked to the level of its access to the single market.
This was Merkel's comment:
Without progress on the many open issues around the exit, including the financial issues, it makes no sense to negotiate in parallel about details of the future relationship. The European Commission, with Jean-Claude Juncker at its head and its chief-negotiator Michel Barnier, has made this position clear again and again. Jean-Claude Juncker, together with Michel Barnier, was in Great Britain just yesterday and set this out yet again. On this the Commission has the full support of the German government. Moreover it’s also clear: a third country – and that is what GB will be – cannot and will not have the same rights or possibly be better-off than a member of the EU. On this too all 27 member states and the EU institutions are united.
Colleagues, perhaps you think this goes without saying. But unfortunately I have to spell it out so clearly here, because I have the feeling that some in Great Britain are still deluding themselves about it. But that would be a waste of time.
It will be. The EU are currently making some ridiculous demands which make any sort of a deal impossible. There biggest red line seems to be leaving the EU must make us poorer by there actions rather than being an opinion.
The problem is that if the plans are not seen as absolutely credible, there could be a market and business reaction which will undermine what she's trying to achieve.
Yes, absolutely. Something thought up after a long boozy lunch and drafted on the back of the fag packet will not do. Something that is serious is what is needed if at all. Now that it's been briefed though it will have to come out.
Cranking out the spin, I think, but there is only so much mileage you can get out of it. David Allen Green has an interesting think piece in the FT today: suppose you were a bitter and twisted Remainer looking to undermine Brexit and ensure it was NOT a success, how would you go about it? His answer - do what Theresa May is doing. I don't think he is quite right, but his logic is impeccable. I find Mrs May's attitude baffling. It's not so much she sets out to undermine the negotiations as she is totally uninterested in them. This suggests she thinks they won't make any difference because either she expects to do exactly as the EU says or she is just going through the motions before their inevitable failure. Neither makes sense. I can only think she is paralysed by indecision. Strange thing.
My take is that May has some very good negotiation analysis advisers and she is playing the pre-negotiation by the book. She needs to convince the EU that she is willing to do no deal. They seem convinced that that is not the case, hence all the 'delusional' references. But it is the case, and May has to convince them that it is neither delusional nor impossible if they continue to act as they have in the pre-negotiation.
My suspicion is that things will be very different behind closed doors once the real negotiations begin, including the atmosphere. I think there will be a 'let's get this done quickly before it unravels' atmosphere, resulting a fairly rapid heads of agreement, and then more workmanlike sessions at more junior levels filling in the non-controversial details.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
There is a basis to demand it. Switzerland is not part of the single market or customs union but does have freedom of movement which is linked to the level of its access to the single market.
This was Merkel's comment:
Without progress on the many open issues around the exit, including the financial issues, it makes no sense to negotiate in parallel about details of the future relationship. The European Commission, with Jean-Claude Juncker at its head and its chief-negotiator Michel Barnier, has made this position clear again and again. Jean-Claude Juncker, together with Michel Barnier, was in Great Britain just yesterday and set this out yet again. On this the Commission has the full support of the German government. Moreover it’s also clear: a third country – and that is what GB will be – cannot and will not have the same rights or possibly be better-off than a member of the EU. On this too all 27 member states and the EU institutions are united.
Colleagues, perhaps you think this goes without saying. But unfortunately I have to spell it out so clearly here, because I have the feeling that some in Great Britain are still deluding themselves about it. But that would be a waste of time.
Switzerland is able to give jobs to local workers first, so effectively does not have full free movement, although it of course does not have full single market membership either, May will aim for somewhere between a Swiss and Canada style relationship with the EU but I doubt it will be completed in 2 years
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
If we ask for a trade deal at least as good as Switzerland's then they will have no option but to insist that free movement is non-negotiable, otherwise Switzerland would want to renegotiate.
It will be. The EU are currently making some ridiculous demands which make any sort of a deal impossible. There biggest red line seems to be leaving the EU must make us poorer by there actions rather than being an opinion.
The problem is that if the plans are not seen as absolutely credible, there could be a market and business reaction which will undermine what she's trying to achieve.
Yes, absolutely. Something thought up after a long boozy lunch and drafted on the back of the fag packet will not do. Something that is serious is what is needed if at all. Now that it's been briefed though it will have to come out.
Cranking out the spin, I think, but there is only so much mileage you can get out of it. David Allen Green has an interesting think piece in the FT today: suppose you were a bitter and twisted Remainer looking to undermine Brexit and ensure it was NOT a success, how would you go about it? His answer - do what Theresa May is doing. I don't think he is quite right, but his logic is impeccable. I find Mrs May's attitude baffling. It's not so much she sets out to undermine the negotiations as she is totally uninterested in them. This suggests she thinks they won't make any difference because either she expects to do exactly as the EU says or she is just going through the motions before their inevitable failure. Neither makes sense. I can only think she is paralysed by indecision. Strange thing.
It looks to me that the EU is the party trying to make the negotiations a failure from the off. I can't see that in Theresa May.
Hopefully without relaunching the tired discussions again, I don't think that applies at least to those actually doing the negotations for the EU, ie Barnier and Tusk, nor to Merkel as evidenced in her now notorious speech to the Bundestag
This
Colleagues, perhaps you think this goes without saying. But unfortunately I have to spell it out so clearly here, because I have the feeling that some in Great Britain are still deluding themselves about it. But that would be a waste of time.
is provocative without some acknowledgement that a mirror criticism applies and that much on both sides is media driven. Better to have said nothing.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
If we ask for a trade deal at least as good as Switzerland's then they will have no option but to insist that free movement is non-negotiable, otherwise Switzerland would want to renegotiate.
We are a much bigger and more important market to the EU. They either want to sell us cheese, wine and cars or they don't. My suspicion is that they'd rather see many of their own people jobless than make a deal though.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
If we ask for a trade deal at least as good as Switzerland's then they will have no option but to insist that free movement is non-negotiable, otherwise Switzerland would want to renegotiate.
Switzerland does not have full free movement as I have already said, the Swiss are allowed to prioritise local workers first for jobs
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
If we ask for a trade deal at least as good as Switzerland's then they will have no option but to insist that free movement is non-negotiable, otherwise Switzerland would want to renegotiate.
We are a much bigger and more important market to the EU. They either want to sell us cheese, wine and cars or they don't. My suspicion is that they'd rather see many of their own people jobless than make a deal though.
The Swiss economy is bigger than all but 5 of the EU27 so it's still very significant, and in any case this is primarily about politics, not economics.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
If we ask for a trade deal at least as good as Switzerland's then they will have no option but to insist that free movement is non-negotiable, otherwise Switzerland would want to renegotiate.
Switzerland does not have full free movement as I have already said, the Swiss are allowed to prioritise local workers first for jobs
There is a basis to demand it. Switzerland is not part of the single market or customs union but does have freedom of movement which is linked to the level of its access to the single market.
This was Merkel's comment:
Without progress on the many open issues around the exit, including the financial issues, it makes no sense to negotiate in parallel about details of the future relationship. The European Commission, with Jean-Claude Juncker at its head and its chief-negotiator Michel Barnier, has made this position clear again and again. Jean-Claude Juncker, together with Michel Barnier, was in Great Britain just yesterday and set this out yet again. On this the Commission has the full support of the German government. Moreover it’s also clear: a third country – and that is what GB will be – cannot and will not have the same rights or possibly be better-off than a member of the EU. On this too all 27 member states and the EU institutions are united.
Colleagues, perhaps you think this goes without saying. But unfortunately I have to spell it out so clearly here, because I have the feeling that some in Great Britain are still deluding themselves about it. But that would be a waste of time.
Switzerland is in the Single Market. May has ruled that out. That is the difference.
"The European Single Market, Internal Market or Common Market is a single market that seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people – the "four freedoms" – within the European Union (EU).[1][2][3][4] The market encompasses the EU's 28 member states, and has been extended, with exceptions, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area and to Switzerland through bilateral treaties."
From Merkel's comments, it's as if she has not heard that May has ruled out both the Single Market and the Customs Union. We are not asking for the same or better deal for access to the Single Market than those who are in it. We are asking for a deal which globally, including relations with non-EU, is more to the liking of the UK than the deal we had with the EU.
It as if people think those are the same thing, hence the idea that it is 'delusional'. They are not, and are not mutually incompatible, hence the UK's negotiating position.
Merkel's comments are not logically consistent. If freedom of movement is such a wonderful thing in their eyes they clearly see it as one of the benefits of single market membership, ergo if we forego FoM we will be worse off, not better off.
May isn't asking for the same rights and benefits as a full member of the EU. She's not asking for a seat at the table where the EU standards and regulations are decided, she's not asking for representation in the EU parliament, nor of membership of a whole host of EU bodies.
This phased approach is nothing more than a negotiating tactic. Not only does it make absolute sense to negotiate the future relationship at the same time as the withdrawal arrangements (including any bill, if there is one), this is the approach required by Article 50: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
If Merkel is finding that she has to spell out her views "again and again" it's because her views are illogical.
Switzerland is in the Single Market. May has ruled that out. That is the difference.
It's a semantic distinction. Switzerland is not in the EEA which most people would define as the single market, but has a bespoke agreement. Is May asking for an inferior bespoke agreement?
This phased approach is nothing more than a negotiating tactic. Not only does it make absolute sense to negotiate the future relationship at the same time as the withdrawal arrangements (including any bill, if there is one), this is the approach required by Article 50: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
The 'framework' is easy: a transitional agreement equivalent to single market membership during which time a full FTA will be negotiated. That's all you need to know in order to negotiate the terms of exit.
When is the last opportunity for labour to get rid of corbyn with the GE in 5 weeks ?
Last summer.....
I was thinking that or after the GE but keep seeing labour people asking now for him to go,would a new leader do any better with only weeks to the vote.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
If we ask for a trade deal at least as good as Switzerland's then they will have no option but to insist that free movement is non-negotiable, otherwise Switzerland would want to renegotiate.
We are a much bigger and more important market to the EU. They either want to sell us cheese, wine and cars or they don't. My suspicion is that they'd rather see many of their own people jobless than make a deal though.
The Swiss economy is bigger than all but 5 of the EU27 so it's still very significant, and in any case this is primarily about politics, not economics.
it is all about politics which is why the EU is bad for Europe, its people and its economy. Just ask the Greeks and Italians.
Merkel's comments are not logically consistent. If freedom of movement is such a wonderful thing in their eyes they clearly see it as one of the benefits of single market membership, ergo if we forego FoM we will be worse off, not better off.
May isn't asking for the same rights and benefits as a full member of the EU. She's not asking for a seat at the table where the EU standards and regulations are decided, she's not asking for representation in the EU parliament, nor of membership of a whole host of EU bodies.
This phased approach is nothing more than a negotiating tactic. Not only does it make absolute sense to negotiate the future relationship at the same time as the withdrawal arrangements (including any bill, if there is one), this is the approach required by Article 50: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
If Merkel is finding that she has to spell out her views "again and again" it's because her views are illogical.
Amen to that but in mitigation much of the EU's thinking is and, over time, the status of logic has consequently atrophied.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.
Second row behind JC, fourth from the right = Leila Khaled.
Are you sure, or are you joking? Cos that is kinda of explosive if it is. Communist Islamic terrorist....that would keep the Sun and the Daily Mail busy for days.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.
It is in the Single Market.
Tomato, tomato.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.
it is all about politics which is why the EU is bad for Europe, its people and its economy. Just ask the Greeks and Italians.
Removing the EU would not reduce the amount of politics involved in relations between European states; it would just make them more chaotic.
The problem with the EU is that it puts the considerations of Brussels over the people in the EU. It need not, it just does. It is a malign and nasty thing. Also, it doesn't stop the actual politics becoming chaotic. Have you not noticed that a far left government is in power in Greece whilst near fascists are getting 40% of the vote in France and Austria?
This phased approach is nothing more than a negotiating tactic. Not only does it make absolute sense to negotiate the future relationship at the same time as the withdrawal arrangements (including any bill, if there is one), this is the approach required by Article 50: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
The 'framework' is easy: a transitional agreement equivalent to single market membership during which time a full FTA will be negotiated. That's all you need to know in order to negotiate the terms of exit.
That's a weak argument and not even the EU are taking that line.
Second row behind JC, fourth from the right = Leila Khaled.
Are you sure, or are you joking? Cos that is kinda of explosive if it is. Communist Islamic terrorist....that would keep the Sun and the Daily Mail busy for days.
Second row behind JC, fourth from the right = Leila Khaled.
Are you sure, or are you joking? Cos that is kinda of explosive if it is. Communist Islamic terrorist....that would keep the Sun and the Daily Mail busy for days.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.
It is in the Single Market.
Tomato, tomato.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.
Let's get back to where we started. I said there was no basis for the EU insisting on freedom of movement because we were not looking to stay in either the Single Market (from whence the FoM requirement arises) nor the Customs Union. You wrongly cited Switzerland and Norway as precedents. I pointed out both were in the Single Market.
So, you were plainly wrong and now try to change the subject. Loser.
This phased approach is nothing more than a negotiating tactic. Not only does it make absolute sense to negotiate the future relationship at the same time as the withdrawal arrangements (including any bill, if there is one), this is the approach required by Article 50: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
The 'framework' is easy: a transitional agreement equivalent to single market membership during which time a full FTA will be negotiated. That's all you need to know in order to negotiate the terms of exit.
That's a weak argument and not even the EU are taking that line.
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.
It is in the Single Market.
Tomato, tomato.
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.
Let's get back to where we started. I said there was no basis for the EU insisting on freedom of movement because we were not looking to stay in either the Single Market (from whence the FoM requirement arises) nor the Customs Union. You wrongly cited Switzerland and Norway as precedents. I pointed out both were in the Single Market.
So, you were plainly wrong and now try to change the subject. Loser.
I only cited Switzerland, not Norway, because the former is not in the EEA but has a bespoke agreement. Whether you call it the single market or not is a semantic distinction so at this point May's commitment to leave the single market is just hot air until we see exactly what she expects from her optimum non-single market deal.
This phased approach is nothing more than a negotiating tactic. Not only does it make absolute sense to negotiate the future relationship at the same time as the withdrawal arrangements (including any bill, if there is one), this is the approach required by Article 50: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
The 'framework' is easy: a transitional agreement equivalent to single market membership during which time a full FTA will be negotiated. That's all you need to know in order to negotiate the terms of exit.
That's a weak argument and not even the EU are taking that line.
Mr Glenn is simply irrational on this issue.
I'm flattered that you confine your comment to this issue.
The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of just 24. But it's actually worse than that since the great metropolis didn't vote today, which had it done so would have skewed the outcome further against the Blue Team. The only saving grace on the other side of the coin is that the SNP is shown as retaining 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, whereas the consensus is that the Tories will win between 5 - 10 of these. Even so, we're still light years away from any sort of landslide. Hmm .... let me have another look at those circa 400 Tory seat spreads. Should you do likewise DYOR.
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.
Not one general election poll has the LDs anywhere near 18% nor the Tories as low as 38% which tells you everything you need to know, there are plenty of voters who vote LDs locally because they are good at emptying the bins and mending potholes but Tory nationally because the Tories can actually run the country http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....
The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of just 24. But it's actually worse than that since the great metropolis didn't vote today, which had it done so would have skewed the outcome further against the Blue Team. The only saving grace on the other side of the coin is that the SNP is shown as retaining 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, whereas the consensus is that the Tories will win between 5 - 10 of these. Even so, we're still light years away from any sort of landslide. Hmm .... let me have another look at those circa 400 Tory seat spreads. Should you do likewise DYOR.
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.
Not one general election poll has the LDs anywhere near 18% nor the Tories as low as 38% which tells you everything you need to know, there are plenty of voters who vote LDs locally because they are good at emptying the bins and mending potholes but Tory nationally because the Tories can actually run the country http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....
The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of just 24. But it's actually worse than that since the great metropolis didn't vote today, which had it done so would have skewed the outcome further against the Blue Team. The only saving grace on the other side of the coin is that the SNP is shown as retaining 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, whereas the consensus is that the Tories will win between 5 - 10 of these. Even so, we're still light years away from any sort of landslide. Hmm .... let me have another look at those circa 400 Tory seat spreads. Should you do likewise DYOR.
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.
Not one general election poll has the LDs anywhere near 18% nor the Tories as low as 38% which tells you everything you need to know, there are plenty of voters who vote LDs locally because they are good at emptying the bins and mending potholes but Tory nationally because the Tories can actually run the country http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....
Er... Barnier said today that they will not compromise on free movement, whilst also his position is that EU citizens here will be able to appeal to the ECJ. That's two f offs I can list without looking stuff up.
The free movement is moot as we won't be in either the Single Market nor the Customs Union, so there will be no basis to demand it. The ECJ appeal is an opening shot.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
Agree on Barnier and Tusk however Barnier raised free movement today as non negotiable in a way which suggests it's part of a free trade deal which it of course need not be. After all there is no FOM with either Canada or South Korea though they have forced it on Norway and Switzerland.
As part of the EEA, both Norway and Switzerland are in the Single Market, albeit with some exceptions, which is why the EU waded in on Switzerland's referendum to limit freedom of movement.
Switzerland has a complex bespoke agreement and is not in the EEA.
It is in the Single Market.
It has favoured access to the Single Market through bespoke agreements but is not actually in it, Mr Glenn is actually right on that point plus it also has local preference for jobs
The BBC share of votes is indeed Con 38, Lab 27, LD 18, UKIP 5.
Where did the LD get all these votes ?
Remain is indeed more than Leave since all Brexiters are voting Tory. Only the Remain vote is split.
Aren't these figures, if correct, desperately disappointing for the Tories? Plug them into Baxter, allowing say 3% for the Greens, and you get 337 Tory seats, giving them a majority of just 24. But it's actually worse than that since the great metropolis didn't vote today, which had it done so would have skewed the outcome further against the Blue Team. The only saving grace on the other side of the coin is that the SNP is shown as retaining 56 of Scotland's 59 seats, whereas the consensus is that the Tories will win between 5 - 10 of these. Even so, we're still light years away from any sort of landslide. Hmm .... let me have another look at those circa 400 Tory seat spreads. Should you do likewise DYOR.
The Conservatives won the West Midlands and Teesside. That points to 400 or so seats.
Not according to Baxter it doesn't, nowhere near, using the BBC's share of the vote percentages, which I have to say look very suspicious with the LibDems on a whopping 18%.
Not one general election poll has the LDs anywhere near 18% nor the Tories as low as 38% which tells you everything you need to know, there are plenty of voters who vote LDs locally because they are good at emptying the bins and mending potholes but Tory nationally because the Tories can actually run the country http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....
Can someone tell me how on earth did Andy Street manage to get 36,000 votes out of Solihul when the tory candidate in the 2015 General election only got less then 27,000 votes?!??? With much higher turnout. They seemed to have squeezed the life out of the lib dems there as it went from 14,000 at the GE to less then 4,000 yesterday.
Comments
This, of course, is something of an exaggeration. But you get the general idea. Labour's voter coalition is splintering, and the habit vote on its own may no longer be enough to help them survive in a lot of places.
Beyond that, you simply can't challenge for the opportunity to govern based mainly on the support of posh faux-Marxist metropolitans, students, public sector workers, the black and Muslim votes, and the very poor. The combined total of these groups isn't anywhere near sufficient to win an election. But the Far Left sect isn't about Government, of course. It's about protest.
If the Labour Party doesn't succeed in overthrowing and purging the deluded and malignant amongst its ranks, then its going to end up as a rump protest party. And goodness only knows how long it will take an alternative opposition party to grow strong enough to shove it out of the way.
https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/04/students-just-blew-the-general-election-wide-open-with-one-hell-of-a-shock-for-theresa-may/
Election is wide open. The students are going to stop Theresa May from getting a landslide.
I've had a riffle through two of the bundles. The Gemplus one contains stuff about Saudi and Ziad Takieddine, inter alia. Takieddine, who has been denied entry to Britain, accused Sarkozy of taking money from Gaddafi. But so far I haven't found anything in the bundle that refers to Macron.
The 'Plan' has to be detailed enough to be credible and ambiguous enough to prevent precise calculation.
Burnham's first act on gaining office was also pretty astute, namely to refusing to make himself available when Corbyn came up to try and associate himself with such an overwhelming victory. Pretty humiliating for Corbyn, that.
These guys are the Wee Free of politics.
What does it mean. It's like they're speaking in code. They used to criticise Blair for being lightweight but as least he had an implementable programme.
Great to hear there is FINALLY another album from London Grammar.
Oh, and Blondie too!
She watched the attempt to renegotiate the terms of our EU relationship by Cameron fail and mentally is refighting the last battle having determined that the mistake we made was not having a credible enough bluff. She thinks that if she closes down all of her escape routes, the EU will have no option but to agree to her terms because the consequences of not doing so will be too severe.
How a music teacher ever got that Newsnight gig I will never know. People used to criticize two Eds Flanders for perhaps having been too close to New Labour politicians, but you couldn't say she wasn't extremely well qualified for the job.
Saw him speaking last summer - his suggestion to replace capitalism was some sort of barter system. Twit.
I feel way more comfortable with Barnier (a surprise to me) and Tusk, both of whom I think will negotiate firmly but as adults, than with Druncker and his cabal. Frankly, I don't understand Frau Merkel's involvement in the whole 'delusional' insults.
This was Merkel's comment:
Without progress on the many open issues around the exit, including the financial issues, it makes no sense to negotiate in parallel about details of the future relationship. The European Commission, with Jean-Claude Juncker at its head and its chief-negotiator Michel Barnier, has made this position clear again and again. Jean-Claude Juncker, together with Michel Barnier, was in Great Britain just yesterday and set this out yet again. On this the Commission has the full support of the German government. Moreover it’s also clear: a third country – and that is what GB will be – cannot and will not have the same rights or possibly be better-off than a member of the EU. On this too all 27 member states and the EU institutions are united.
Colleagues, perhaps you think this goes without saying. But unfortunately I have to spell it out so clearly here, because I have the feeling that some in Great Britain are still deluding themselves about it. But that would be a waste of time.
https://judithknott.com/2017/05/04/merkels-27-april-speech-to-the-bundestag-full-translation/
My suspicion is that things will be very different behind closed doors once the real negotiations begin, including the atmosphere. I think there will be a 'let's get this done quickly before it unravels' atmosphere, resulting a fairly rapid heads of agreement, and then more workmanlike sessions at more junior levels filling in the non-controversial details.
Habib Koite and Raichel and Toure also nice African music... I am beginning to prefer songs where I don't understand the words.
Last summer.....
Colleagues, perhaps you think this goes without saying. But unfortunately I have to spell it out so clearly here, because I have the feeling that some in Great Britain are still deluding themselves about it. But that would be a waste of time.
is provocative without some acknowledgement that a mirror criticism applies and that much on both sides is media driven. Better to have said nothing.
And Paul Simon. Certain Africans are still bitter ...
"The European Single Market, Internal Market or Common Market is a single market that seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people – the "four freedoms" – within the European Union (EU).[1][2][3][4] The market encompasses the EU's 28 member states, and has been extended, with exceptions, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area and to Switzerland through bilateral treaties."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
From Merkel's comments, it's as if she has not heard that May has ruled out both the Single Market and the Customs Union. We are not asking for the same or better deal for access to the Single Market than those who are in it. We are asking for a deal which globally, including relations with non-EU, is more to the liking of the UK than the deal we had with the EU.
It as if people think those are the same thing, hence the idea that it is 'delusional'. They are not, and are not mutually incompatible, hence the UK's negotiating position.
May isn't asking for the same rights and benefits as a full member of the EU. She's not asking for a seat at the table where the EU standards and regulations are decided, she's not asking for representation in the EU parliament, nor of membership of a whole host of EU bodies.
This phased approach is nothing more than a negotiating tactic. Not only does it make absolute sense to negotiate the future relationship at the same time as the withdrawal arrangements (including any bill, if there is one), this is the approach required by Article 50: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
If Merkel is finding that she has to spell out her views "again and again" it's because her views are illogical.
Matthew Parris
The collapse of Ukip has benefited the Tories but the jingoistic red-white-and-blue stuff will rebound on them in the long term"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/my-party-s-triumphant-and-yet-i-feel-fearful-3qlpzdz8b
Mark, worried for sunday ;-)
Paging...Guido....Sun...etc etc etc...
In what concrete sense is May expecting the UK to have inferior access to the single market? So far as one can tell she has not specified anything that she wants to give up, other than the ECJ and FoM, which would mean the UK having a 'better' deal than any other third country, including those in the EEA + Switzerland.
So, you were plainly wrong and now try to change the subject. Loser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983
What the actual feck?