The campaign of French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron says it has been the target of a "massive hacking attack" after a trove of documents was released online.
"The leaked files were obtained several weeks ago by hacking personal and professional email accounts of several officials of the movement," it said in a statement.
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.
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.
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?
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.
What the actual feck?
Must be a larger counting area given the low turnout.
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.
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.
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 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.
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.
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.
Since we are giving up membership of the single market anyway not really and as I said the Swiss already have local job offer preference arrangements
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.
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.
I believe people are talking about a Canada plus sort of deal. That has no FOM.
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 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.
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.
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.
I believe people are talking about a Canada plus sort of deal. That has no FOM.
The devil is in the detail of what the 'plus' means.
That would make sense if his party was 3% - 5% adrift in the polls - it makes no sense at all when trailing by over 20%! What on earth did he have to lose?
Very late to the party, and perhaps giving JC more credit and intelligence than he deserved but perhaps he didn't think he'd get to 2020.
We've all talked about leadership challengers, and how another might be mounted again in 2018. JC would also be 71 in 2020. That's pretty old by modern standards for head of government for the first time.
East Renfrewshire is pretty much up there with the top 4. It would be a surprise if it didn't fall now. In Banff and Buchan the SNP got 60% last time around. Surely a stretch too far. In Gordon I think the Tories will do well to come second.
I think both will stay SNP on balance. However, I couldn't help but notice that both Peterhead and Fraserburgh - the two main towns in Banff and Buchan and by no means particularly Conservative friendly - now both have Conservative councillors elected at the first stage - both being towns that voted 'Yes' and 'Leave', and neither of which had Conservative councillors previously. Banff and Buchan as a whole is thought to have voted 'Leave' reasonably convincingly, and it's the sort of old fashioned, socially conservative, old-style SNP constituency that might be alienated by the Central Belt focus of the SNP eventually. I should say that I don't think it will turn blue this time though.
East Renfrewshire is a constituency that I think will turn blue but on a less impressive swing than some other places, given that it underperformed for the Conservatives last year, and also rather reminds me of those other suburban English constituencies on the verge of large conurbations which have been moving away from the Tories over the last few decades.
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.
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.
I believe people are talking about a Canada plus sort of deal. That has no FOM.
The devil is in the detail of what the 'plus' means.
Quite. If they think that it means they can have what we voted out of they can get lost,
That would make sense if his party was 3% - 5% adrift in the polls - it makes no sense at all when trailing by over 20%! What on earth did he have to lose?
Very late to the party, and perhaps giving JC more credit and intelligence than he deserved but perhaps he didn't think he'd get to 2020.
We've all talked about leadership challengers, and how another might be mounted again in 2018. JC would also be 71 in 2020. That's pretty old by modern standards for head of government for the first time.
He probably thought it's now or never.
But why would he wish to insist on having the opportunity to lead his party to a humiliating defeat?
On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.
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 uk/
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....
On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.
Tories were of course sympathetic to James II and his heirs, the Whigs more to the Hanoverians
On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.
Tories were of course sympathetic to James II and his heirs, the Whigs more to the Hanoverians
Indeed, and while in England there were some Hanoverian Tories, the vast majority of Tories in Scotland were Jacobites or Jacobite-sympathisers.
EDIT: And it would of course be remiss of me not to point out that James II = James VII!
On a sidenote it is quite interesting that it is the areas that were on completely opposite sides in the 17th/18th century wars of religion and Jacobite rebellions (the north east and south west) of Scotland which seem to be most likely to fall to the Conservatives at the next election. I'm not sure what that says about the idea that the longest running divide in British politics is that between Cavalier and Roundhead.
Tories were of course sympathetic to James II and his heirs, the Whigs more to the Hanoverians
Indeed, and while in England there were some Hanoverian Tories, the vast majority of Tories in Scotland were Jacobites or Jacobite-sympathisers.
EDIT: And it would of course be remiss of me not to point out that James II = James VII!
But why would he wish to insist on having the opportunity to lead his party to a humiliating defeat?
The job of Leader of the Opposition is to oppose and form a government in waiting. I mean, failed LotO don't look at themselves and think they will be a failure. Did Kinnock think he'd lose in both 1987 and 1992 and therefore just not run? Of course he didn't.
Corbyn thinks he can win, but doesn't want to wait till 2020. He'll be over 70 and fighting off leadership challenges for the next three years. TMay gave him a golden opportunity to fight and fight now. He may even be perceptive enough to know he'll lose - but you know, retirement after 35 years building up an MPs pension awaits - and those marches won't march themselves.......
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.
Since FoM and ECJ are surely "benefits" of being in the EU how can not having them be "better"?
They're obligations as well so being able to avoid them would be a case of 'one rule for the UK and another for everyone else', also known as cherry-picking.
You mean like the EU wanting their citizens on the UK to have superior rights to UK citizens in the UK?
But why would he wish to insist on having the opportunity to lead his party to a humiliating defeat?
The job of Leader of the Opposition is to oppose and form a government in waiting. I mean, failed LotO don't look at themselves and think they will be a failure. Did Kinnock think he'd lose in both 1987 and 1992 and therefore just not run? Of course he didn't.
Corbyn thinks he can win, but doesn't want to wait till 2020. He'll be over 70 and fighting off leadership challenges for the next three years. TMay gave him a golden opportunity to fight and fight now. He may even be perceptive enough to know he'll lose - but you know, retirement after 35 years building up an MPs pension awaits - and those marches won't march themselves.......
Yes, he rather reminds me of a joke from my childhood about the Orangemen's calendar.
You have to conclude that Matthew Parris isn't a Tory any more - after all no one could in all honesty describe Theresa May as some form of right wing ogre. It is Mr. Parris whose views have shifted and not those of the Conservative party. Perhaps it would be better all round if he were to find a different political home.
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.
What the actual feck?
Solihull constituency is only 50% of Solihull council area. The other 50% is the Meriden seat represented by Caroline Spelman, which is basically the semi-rural area between B'ham and Coventry.
Although the Lib Dems increased its share of the vote, where they were up against the Conservatives, the Conservatives must have gained even more (from UKIP?) for Lib Dems to have lost a net 41 seats.
In medicine, the natural order is generally diagnosis, treatment and then a prognosis. The Labour party haven't agreed on the first yet.
The diagnosis is an inoperable tumour - one Jeremy Corbyn. There may be other minor ailments but they are irrelevant to life expectancy. However, the labour Party members are in denial still. It's the fault of the media, the Blairites, the idiot electors. Change them and all is well.
Jezza will go nowhere until the members reach the correct diagnosis or the patient dies. Prognosis - not good
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 j.
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 uk/
Spot on. Turnouts in the GE are alot larger too. Anyone baxtering the locals - Well.....
Comments
"The leaked files were obtained several weeks ago by hacking personal and professional email accounts of several officials of the movement," it said in a statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39827244
I wonder if we will see anything similar in our GE?
We've all talked about leadership challengers, and how another might be mounted again in 2018. JC would also be 71 in 2020. That's pretty old by modern standards for head of government for the first time.
He probably thought it's now or never.
East Renfrewshire is a constituency that I think will turn blue but on a less impressive swing than some other places, given that it underperformed for the Conservatives last year, and also rather reminds me of those other suburban English constituencies on the verge of large conurbations which have been moving away from the Tories over the last few decades.
EDIT: And it would of course be remiss of me not to point out that James II = James VII!
Corbyn thinks he can win, but doesn't want to wait till 2020. He'll be over 70 and fighting off leadership challenges for the next three years. TMay gave him a golden opportunity to fight and fight now. He may even be perceptive enough to know he'll lose - but you know, retirement after 35 years building up an MPs pension awaits - and those marches won't march themselves.......
January, February, March, March, March...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39822355
The diagnosis is an inoperable tumour - one Jeremy Corbyn. There may be other minor ailments but they are irrelevant to life expectancy. However, the labour Party members are in denial still. It's the fault of the media, the Blairites, the idiot electors. Change them and all is well.
Jezza will go nowhere until the members reach the correct diagnosis or the patient dies. Prognosis - not good