[director-general in charge of the budget]Calvino was very clear. The only ‘legally defensible’ approach was not to ‘cherry-pick’ the annual accounts,” said a senior EU diplomatic source, “She could not see how the EU could justify taking into account all the UK’s commitments, but not a share of the assets.”
We are not expects at this type of thing, nor are most people, but the sudden hike in the EU demands never smelt right, it seemed solely about the EU playing its part in escalating matters and making the atmosphere more hostile (yes, the EU is able to contribute to escalation as well as the UK), and was in any case demonstrably cherry picking, something the EU claims not to support anywhere else.
The 'bill' seemed on the face of it wildly overblown and reportedly not enforceable as it was not truly our obligation but a wish list, so its intent was likely just part of the diplomatic shenanigans where each side is trying to get the other to react, and be blamed for the likely no deal we will get. Given the UK is derided and mocked for not understanding the situation, for not preparing properly (with the inference the EU has both understood it perfectly and prepared) it does not make sense that they suddenly discovered they were owed 40bn more euros.
But I've had enough of Brexit for awhile. Either it's no deal, or the current rowing is just showmanship for the cameras, either way neither side can be trusted if it is the latter, and it's all pointless talk if it is the former.
That's an awfully low UKIP, although I suppose 7-8% does seem too high. I'm resolved to try to stop overestimating Labour and underestimating the Tories, although nearly doubling the Lab score seems like a hell of a challenge even so. Mid 20s feels right for Lab, but they look pretty stubborn at present.
Dave and George set up the foundations for this victory, remember they took the Tory party from fewer than 200 MPs to 331 MPs.
Plus Dave was never fortunate to face up against Corbyn.
He did last year in the local elections. And he lost.
You sound like a Lib Dem, banging on about council elections, the performance was not bad for a party six years in government and tearing itself over the EU.
I'd point out Cameron was the only Prime Minister to resign as PM whilst leading in the polls.
If SNP hold BRS and take the Holyrood seat I would be poor and feel guilty about all the people i told to pile on the Tories at the absurdly generous odds but I would laugh for a week.
I guess that goes for "diverse" in the borders.....
I would imagine that the Greens won't do nearly that well (they are the only party liable to be squeezed by Labour,) and that Ukip will not collapse so completely: although they have declined more than I expected, I believe that they do have a constituency that will stick with them. Some people still won't trust either Labour or the Tories, and in particular some will remain sceptical of what May has in mind vis-a-vis Brexit. In short, you can probably swap those Green and Ukip estimates around.
I think you're probably in the right ball park for the Lib Dems. Labour somewhere around 25%, Cons around 45%. I don't believe what the polls that put them around 30% are saying; certainly, if the pollsters continue to stubbornly rate Labour at 30% and they turn out to be right, then I'll be both astonished and fascinated to know where they found all the extra voters!
Historical precedent suggests that Labour should achieve less than their PNS from the locals, and that was only 27%. I therefore remain convinced that polls that are more generous to Labour than that are wrong.
I would say 45% Con and 25% Lab... But it does feel right for a "bloodbath" doesn't it?
Certainly higher than a 48 majority. That forecast wasn't necessarily wrong in the context of the local elections when the Tories would have lost seats like Watford and St Albans that they probably won't lose at the GE.
They are completely bonkers. To hell with the West Midlands and Norh East, let's concentrate on getting the vote out in London and Liverpool.
Concentrating on saving seats may make sense, but to sacrifice even that in order to pile up useless votes is actively harmful to the party. How the hell can any Labour candidate put up with "leadership" like that?
Your privacy will not be affected unless you are voting for Conservatives/Government in power
Oh, well that's fine then.
Sadly, it's Labour voters who don't turn out to vote
Pretty obvious problem with that sentence, but I'll be charitable and assume by 'Labour voter' they meant 'Labour supporter', although frankly they shouldn't rely on that. My anecdotal elderly non-voter and self described 'Labour man' is now saying they will vote in a GE for the first time, but to stop Corbyn. So they supported Labour in theory all their life, but the first time they vote (if they do) will be against them.
I also think ever working class council tenant who votes Tory should have to give up their council house
Yes of course, how dare people vote the wrong way!
I know there are far right idiots who post hilarious nonsense too, but this is some good stuff.
Is jezza really going to stand there a day after the GE with a Tory majority of 150 and say well but I got 29% of the vote with record numbers in places like Liverpool therefore it shows my message is one the British public want to and therefore I will stay on.... Certifiable.
Cameron must be the most successful politician in terms of electoral progress of all time.
From under 200 seats to Government five years later.
Then told that "Whoever wins this GE will be out of power for a generation because of cuts required"
What happened? He governed for 5 years with all the difficulties of coalition and then went on to win a majority (also against the "rule" that governing parties always fall back).
But TMay is the right person for the right time - she will win more votes today than Cameron would have won today - but she could never have achieved what Cameron did between 2005 and 2015.
[director-general in charge of the budget]Calvino was very clear. The only ‘legally defensible’ approach was not to ‘cherry-pick’ the annual accounts,” said a senior EU diplomatic source, “She could not see how the EU could justify taking into account all the UK’s commitments, but not a share of the assets.”
We are not expects at this type of thing, nor are most people, but the sudden hike in the EU demands never smelt right, it seemed solely about the EU playing its part in escalating matters and making the atmosphere more hostile (yes, the EU is able to contribute to escalation as well as the UK), and was in any case demonstrably cherry picking, something the EU claims not to support anywhere else.
The 'bill' seemed on the face of it wildly overblown and reportedly not enforceable as it was not truly our obligation but a wish list, so its intent was likely just part of the diplomatic shenanigans where each side is trying to get the other to react, and be blamed for the likely no deal we will get. Given the UK is derided and mocked for not understanding the situation, for not preparing properly (with the inference the EU has both understood it perfectly and prepared) it does not make sense that they suddenly discovered they were owed 40bn more euros.
But I've had enough of Brexit for awhile. Either it's no deal, or the current rowing is just showmanship for the cameras, either way neither side can be trusted if it is the latter, and it's all pointless talk if it is the former.
The difference is because the €100bn is gross and €60bn net as I read. Some of the figue is liability for loans, to Ireland for example, that are going to be repaid, at which point we get our money back.
Not that it is politically possible to agree anything like that.
Is jezza really going to stand there a day after the GE with a Tory majority of 150 and say well but I got 29% of the vote with record numbers in places like Liverpool therefore it shows my message is one the British public want to and therefore I will stay on.... Certifiable.
I've been skeptical of the claims that he would stay on after a landslide loss, I feel like that would finally push many MPs to just leave the party and not wait for a leadership contest, and he doesn't want that because he might lose.
But if he gets the same percentage as Ed M, I could see it. He would have some basis at least that perhaps if he had had a united party they would have done better still.
The LD figure looks a bit high - no reason why they would have received a boost from the locals.
I don't see in principle why not. Lib Dems spend most of the time being ignored but try to catch people's attention during elections and so usually see a boost at that time. They are also relatively strong on local politics. Having a local election just before a national one is helpful to them.
Cameron must be the most successful politician in terms of electoral progress of all time.
From 165 seats to Government five years later.
Then told that "Whoever wins this GE will be out of power for a generation because of cuts required"
What happened? He governed for 5 years with all the difficulties of coalition and then went on to win a majority (also against the "rule" that governing parties always fall back).
But TMay is the right person for the right time - she will win more votes today than Cameron would have won today - but she could never have achieved what Cameron did between 2005 and 2015.
Don't you mean from 198 seats to Government in five years?
I'm aware it's unlikely to be a successful strategy, what I'm saying is that it is the ideal of what an election really ought to be. Having popular policies and getting a lot of votes. As such it can't really be credibly labelled as a dastardly plot.
I would say 45% Con and 25% Lab... But it does feel right for a "bloodbath" doesn't it?
While we're in prediction mode, I'll start with C 46 L 27 LD 12, which I think is a Tory majority of 130+. Trouble is, it's hard to be confident that Labour will keep it together for the next 5 weeks.
CORRECTION THE LIB DEMS AREN'T ON 14% WITH YOUGOV. I MISREAD THE ARTICLE
We all make mistakes. In my area yesterday two divisions had incorrect winners declared. Talk about embarrassing (nothing to do with me, I hasten to add).
I would imagine that the Greens won't do nearly that well (they are the only party liable to be squeezed by Labour,) and that Ukip will not collapse so completely: although they have declined more than I expected, I believe that they do have a constituency that will stick with them. Some people still won't trust either Labour or the Tories, and in particular some will remain sceptical of what May has in mind vis-a-vis Brexit. In short, you can probably swap those Green and Ukip estimates around.
I think you're probably in the right ball park for the Lib Dems. Labour somewhere around 25%, Cons around 45%. I don't believe what the polls that put them around 30% are saying; certainly, if the pollsters continue to stubbornly rate Labour at 30% and they turn out to be right, then I'll be both astonished and fascinated to know where they found all the extra voters!
Historical precedent suggests that Labour should achieve less than their PNS from the locals, and that was only 27%. I therefore remain convinced that polls that are more generous to Labour than that are wrong.
My thinking for the Greens is that they might benefit from some "anti-Corbyn but never Tory" sentiment.
I just think that UKIP will field a much reduced slate of candidates, so their vote share will be down on national polling (even allowing for them standing in their better prospects).
Corbyn: 14% Right wing populism: 35% Failed Blairite coup last year: 51%
YouGov (May 5)
You what? Who thinks this?
I'll be charitable and say the Tory rise (we'll call it right wing populism here I guess) was a bigger reason than merely Corbyn (although the two linked to some degree), but the Blairite Coup?
So, LDs and Labour are both now committed to keeping the Triple Lock? Both are really trying to dig into the elderly vote, and presumably thinking the Tories will not commit to keeping it, which I hope is the case but seeing how TMay panicked over the budget I doubt will be the case.
The difference is because the €100bn is gross and €60bn net as I read. Some of the figue is liability for loans, to Ireland for example, that are going to be repaid, at which point we get our money back.
Not that it is politically possible to agree anything like that.
It is probably now sinking in with the Remoanariat that compared with these figures £350m a week looks like a sober, cautious, conservative, prudent and responsible estimate. Embarrassing for them, since the only "lie" they can now rely on is that Leave said that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU - a shocking travesty of the true situation, which is that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU.
That's really interesting. Naive little me, I thought that party HQ was arranging for Corbyn to be subtly shoved out of the way of the marginal defences, but I should've known better. They can help out the rank-and-file MPs as much as they can, but what power do they have to influence where the leader goes campaigning?
His pattern of visits all makes perfect sense now: go to Tory-held marginals they know full well they aren't going to win, so that it makes it look as if Team Corbyn is making a genuine effort to take the fight to the Tories - and then back to the ultra safe seats to try to enthuse the base and get the vote up. The marginals can all be abandoned to their fate, whilst Jeremy concentrates on maximising turnout in the inner cities, which are also the places containing disproportionate concentrations of his shrunken list of target voter groups, in particular black and Muslim voters and the very poor. Thus he can genuinely claim his vote share hasn't collapsed, and blame the Tory landslide (which would still come under such circumstances, because Labour turnout would be concentrated in the inner cities, whilst the drop in the vote would be all the more dramatic elsewhere) on Ukip to Con defectors.
Its a perfect formula for wearing Labour down to a genuine Hard Left party, stripped largely of inconvenient white working class voters with traditional views, whilst increasing the proportion of the remaining MPs that are from his own faction at the same time. Why didn't I see it before? It's brilliant! I mean, for the Corbyn faction, not for the Labour Party, which would of course be headed for permanent rump status.
Rallings & Thrasher has the Tories and Labour both 1 point higher than the first BBC estimates on Friday, and the LibDems 4 points lower.
That makes far more sense for the LDs, it didn't make much sense for them to have lost seats if they really had gained as much in voteshare as the BBC were saying.
The difference is because the €100bn is gross and €60bn net as I read. Some of the figue is liability for loans, to Ireland for example, that are going to be repaid, at which point we get our money back.
Not that it is politically possible to agree anything like that.
It is probably now sinking in with the Remoanariat that compared with these figures £350m a week looks like a sober, cautious, conservative, prudent and responsible estimate. Embarrassing for them, since the only "lie" they can now rely on is that Leave said that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU - a shocking travesty of the true situation, which is that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU.
The 'lie' was the impression given it was imminent, which it very much is not since they've been talking about it over 30 years and seem to be moving further away from joining, no matter any talk of fast tracking at times (seemingly as just nice talk, rather than any true indication the joining was moving significantly closer). As a leaver, I'll give the remoaners that one.
Cameron must be the most successful politician in terms of electoral progress of all time.
From 165 seats to Government five years later.
Then told that "Whoever wins this GE will be out of power for a generation because of cuts required"
What happened? He governed for 5 years with all the difficulties of coalition and then went on to win a majority (also against the "rule" that governing parties always fall back).
But TMay is the right person for the right time - she will win more votes today than Cameron would have won today - but she could never have achieved what Cameron did between 2005 and 2015.
Don't you mean from 198 seats to Government in five years?
Yes - apologies - have already edited original post.
Well Sporting Index, Spreadex and Betfair all reckon they'll pick up 70 or 75!
That analysis seems to assume the Tories will secure the same vote share in the general (39%) that they did in the local... Which is a point of view I suppose...
Well Sporting Index, Spreadex and Betfair all reckon they'll pick up 70 or 75!
Given how bad Ralling and Thrasher's predictions have been during the last two years, we should be getting ready for a Tory majority of 250 on June 8th
The difference is because the €100bn is gross and €60bn net as I read. Some of the figue is liability for loans, to Ireland for example, that are going to be repaid, at which point we get our money back.
Not that it is politically possible to agree anything like that.
It is probably now sinking in with the Remoanariat that compared with these figures £350m a week looks like a sober, cautious, conservative, prudent and responsible estimate. Embarrassing for them, since the only "lie" they can now rely on is that Leave said that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU - a shocking travesty of the true situation, which is that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU.
The 'lie' was the impression given it was imminent, which it very much is not since they've been talking about it over 30 years and seem to be moving further away from joining, no matter any talk of fast tracking at times. As a leaver, I'll give the remoaners that one.
I have 30 years left in the tank, which is probably about the median for PBers, and I have children who may in turn have children, and even if I didn't I do not subscribe to the Leadsomite view of non-parenthood, and we last had a vote in 1975, and for all those reasons I voted with a minimum 40 year timeframe in mind. And if the EU wasn't going to make up its mind over Turkey within that time, we should be leaving it on grounds of incompetent and dilatory wankerdom.
Well his source in the party could've made it up of course.
If it is true, it's (unsurprisingly) delusional. 1. Getting people in safe seats to vote is like stamping out schadenfreude in the EU - impossible unless you bribe them. And 2. if (I mean when) May gets a 100+ majority no-one is going to be impressed by the size of Corbyn's %.
And 3. Labour is not going to get 30% in this election!
Its a perfect formula for wearing Labour down to a genuine Hard Left party, stripped largely of inconvenient white working class voters with traditional views, whilst increasing the proportion of the remaining MPs that are from his own faction at the same time. Why didn't I see it before? It's brilliant! I mean, for the Corbyn faction, not for the Labour Party, which would of course be headed for permanent rump status.
That makes a fair bit of sense. I wonder how many Labour candidates see it too? And when are they going to act?
The difference is because the €100bn is gross and €60bn net as I read. Some of the figue is liability for loans, to Ireland for example, that are going to be repaid, at which point we get our money back.
Not that it is politically possible to agree anything like that.
It is probably now sinking in with the Remoanariat that compared with these figures £350m a week looks like a sober, cautious, conservative, prudent and responsible estimate. Embarrassing for them, since the only "lie" they can now rely on is that Leave said that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU - a shocking travesty of the true situation, which is that negotiations were on foot for Turkey to join the EU.
The 'lie' was the impression given it was imminent, which it very much is not since they've been talking about it over 30 years and seem to be moving further away from joining, no matter any talk of fast tracking at times (seemingly as just nice talk, rather than any true indication the joining was moving significantly closer). As a leaver, I'll give the remoaners that one.
Rallings and Thrasher say Mrs May will pick up just 24 seats on June 8th That's not what the extract says, unless there's more to it than I can see. It says Rallings and Thrasher says they got X in the locals, then the article says that puts them on course to win 24 seats. But that presumes X is what the proportions will be on 8 June, and the pictured extract doesn't say Rallings and Thrasher think that will be the case. They might do, but the extract doesn't say.
Something tells me I'm going to get dumped during this general election campaign.
Mike finally going to bring someone in that knows what they're doing?
I meant by my girlfriend.
Though I suspect Mike may dump me after tomorrow's morning thread.
Has she been put off by the relentless AV discussions?
Darling, would you excuse me for a few minutes whilst I tweet, post to a blog, and bet is starting to annoy her I fear.
Don't have her around all the time would be my advice - if you're doing politics stuff make sure she's not around if poss, when you're with her try to stay away from the politics!
Comments
CON 47%
LAB 24%
LIB 12%
UKIP 3%
GREEN 6%
It will be a bloodbath on election night.....
We are not expects at this type of thing, nor are most people, but the sudden hike in the EU demands never smelt right, it seemed solely about the EU playing its part in escalating matters and making the atmosphere more hostile (yes, the EU is able to contribute to escalation as well as the UK), and was in any case demonstrably cherry picking, something the EU claims not to support anywhere else.
The 'bill' seemed on the face of it wildly overblown and reportedly not enforceable as it was not truly our obligation but a wish list, so its intent was likely just part of the diplomatic shenanigans where each side is trying to get the other to react, and be blamed for the likely no deal we will get. Given the UK is derided and mocked for not understanding the situation, for not preparing properly (with the inference the EU has both understood it perfectly and prepared) it does not make sense that they suddenly discovered they were owed 40bn more euros.
But I've had enough of Brexit for awhile. Either it's no deal, or the current rowing is just showmanship for the cameras, either way neither side can be trusted if it is the latter, and it's all pointless talk if it is the former.
Plus Dave was never fortunate to face up against Corbyn.
No wonder they are getting such high Tory numbers.
High Green score too.
If it is true there is simply no reason why any Labour candidate should continue to support Corbyn.
I'd point out Cameron was the only Prime Minister to resign as PM whilst leading in the polls.
http://i.imgur.com/gK8QouA.png
So between us, are we saying that this pollster is of dubious credibility?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/09/13/corbyns-english-challenge/
Great news for @Tissue_Price in Don Valley though!
I think you're probably in the right ball park for the Lib Dems. Labour somewhere around 25%, Cons around 45%. I don't believe what the polls that put them around 30% are saying; certainly, if the pollsters continue to stubbornly rate Labour at 30% and they turn out to be right, then I'll be both astonished and fascinated to know where they found all the extra voters!
Historical precedent suggests that Labour should achieve less than their PNS from the locals, and that was only 27%. I therefore remain convinced that polls that are more generous to Labour than that are wrong.
Ipsos MORI also had them on 14% in December.
Oh, well that's fine then.
Sadly, it's Labour voters who don't turn out to vote
Pretty obvious problem with that sentence, but I'll be charitable and assume by 'Labour voter' they meant 'Labour supporter', although frankly they shouldn't rely on that. My anecdotal elderly non-voter and self described 'Labour man' is now saying they will vote in a GE for the first time, but to stop Corbyn. So they supported Labour in theory all their life, but the first time they vote (if they do) will be against them.
I also think ever working class council tenant who votes Tory should have to give up their council house
Yes of course, how dare people vote the wrong way!
I know there are far right idiots who post hilarious nonsense too, but this is some good stuff.
From under 200 seats to Government five years later.
Then told that "Whoever wins this GE will be out of power for a generation because of cuts required"
What happened? He governed for 5 years with all the difficulties of coalition and then went on to win a majority (also against the "rule" that governing parties always fall back).
But TMay is the right person for the right time - she will win more votes today than Cameron would have won today - but she could never have achieved what Cameron did between 2005 and 2015.
Not that it is politically possible to agree anything like that.
I doubt this one moved the markets...
But if he gets the same percentage as Ed M, I could see it. He would have some basis at least that perhaps if he had had a united party they would have done better still.
Lab 28% (-1)
Changes since Wednesday
Corbyn: 14%
Right wing populism: 35%
Failed Blairite coup last year: 51%
YouGov (May 5)
I just think that UKIP will field a much reduced slate of candidates, so their vote share will be down on national polling (even allowing for them standing in their better prospects).
I'll be charitable and say the Tory rise (we'll call it right wing populism here I guess) was a bigger reason than merely Corbyn (although the two linked to some degree), but the Blairite Coup?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbJ0QMWKdk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39831522
His pattern of visits all makes perfect sense now: go to Tory-held marginals they know full well they aren't going to win, so that it makes it look as if Team Corbyn is making a genuine effort to take the fight to the Tories - and then back to the ultra safe seats to try to enthuse the base and get the vote up. The marginals can all be abandoned to their fate, whilst Jeremy concentrates on maximising turnout in the inner cities, which are also the places containing disproportionate concentrations of his shrunken list of target voter groups, in particular black and Muslim voters and the very poor. Thus he can genuinely claim his vote share hasn't collapsed, and blame the Tory landslide (which would still come under such circumstances, because Labour turnout would be concentrated in the inner cities, whilst the drop in the vote would be all the more dramatic elsewhere) on Ukip to Con defectors.
Its a perfect formula for wearing Labour down to a genuine Hard Left party, stripped largely of inconvenient white working class voters with traditional views, whilst increasing the proportion of the remaining MPs that are from his own faction at the same time. Why didn't I see it before? It's brilliant! I mean, for the Corbyn faction, not for the Labour Party, which would of course be headed for permanent rump status.
That makes far more sense for the LDs, it didn't make much sense for them to have lost seats if they really had gained as much in voteshare as the BBC were saying.
Though I suspect Mike may dump me after tomorrow's morning thread.
If it is true, it's (unsurprisingly) delusional. 1. Getting people in safe seats to vote is like stamping out schadenfreude in the EU - impossible unless you bribe them. And 2. if (I mean when) May gets a 100+ majority no-one is going to be impressed by the size of Corbyn's %.
And 3. Labour is not going to get 30% in this election!
Only saving grace is that it is a betting thread,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36672242
"The EU has opened a new chapter in Turkey's EU membership talks..."
That's not what the extract says, unless there's more to it than I can see. It says Rallings and Thrasher says they got X in the locals, then the article says that puts them on course to win 24 seats. But that presumes X is what the proportions will be on 8 June, and the pictured extract doesn't say Rallings and Thrasher think that will be the case. They might do, but the extract doesn't say.