As far as I can tell the Greens impact has been ignored - In the Council elections the Greens polled over 5% in many areas - they hit 12.4% in Edinburgh !! - The press have already picked up on the forecast:
Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. Any examination of his engagement with Northern Ireland shows this. Two weeks after the Brighton bombing he invited Sinn Fein leaders to the House of Commons. He stood in silence to honour the IRA dead. He voted against the Good Friday agreement. I don't know if Nick Palmer is being naive, disingenuous or dishonest, but he is wrong. Islington, like Camden, was a very Irish and very pro-Republican in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Pubs played the Soldiers Song at closing time, there were regular collections for the provisionals and Sinn Fein. You did not get on in the Labour party there without solid Republican credentials. Things have changed, time has moved on, but Corbyn cannot undo his past. It's there and it's clear to see. The Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness because the government told her to. She also shook hands with countless others from all sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Show me one photo of Jeremy Corbyn shaking hands with a loyalist or a unionist; one of him meeting them or marching with them. There are none. He regarded them as the enemy.
You forgot to include the British Army and police wounded personnel in your list of people beside whom he did not stand, smiling broadly, let alone shake hands with. In his non-partisan engagement in the cause of peace, that is.
And NPXMP either has a terrible memory or is less than scrupulously honest. With himself, of course.
I asked NP yesterday what his recollection of his comments re his canvas returns in 2015 was. I may be wrong , but I seem to recall NP said it was too close to call, when in fact Soubry won big..
I was in a cafe this morning looking at some election literature and an Italian friend said to me "what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
Like all flavours of Brexit the definitions are fluid.
There is only one flavour of BrExit, all other synthetic flavours are figments of the imagination of diehard remainers who want to imply there is an easy cuddly option available, and that May is being irresponsible for not taking it.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
While I agree that soft Brexit is a mirage, I think that one could usefuly define Hard Brexit as being outside the customs union and soft being within the CU, including being within the Single Market.
If we take that as a working definition then, Doc, we are on route to a Hard Brexit (as stated by the PM and as agreed by you and I on here many months ago).
Quite what a diamond-hard Brexit is (a phrase used recently by some on here) I have no idea.
I think SeanT coined that phrase to refer to Brexit without an agreement, straight to WTO rules. Others have referred to it as the cliff-edge.
Kle4,4 Yes it was the Ilk word.My apologies if I got that wrong.
I can see why it could be interpreted in the manner you did. But I'm not intrinsically opposed to things like nationalisation, or other things Corbyn might occasionally suggest. I might back down over details, but I'd be prepared to listen on a lot of his domestic stuff, and I will read the manifesto. But fundamentally I think he is not up for the job for many reasons, and some of those around him are no better or worse. They need defeating.
If some of their ideas are good, then even if they are dismissed now because of him, they will come back even from those currently dismissing it - we see the same thing with TMay taking on Ed M's energy cap policy (though if that is indeed a good policy is far from agreed, but clearly she thinks it is).
I was in a cafe this morning looking at some election literature and an Italian friend said to me "what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
Like all flavours of Brexit the definitions are fluid.
There is only one flavour of BrExit, all other synthetic flavours are figments of the imagination of diehard remainers who want to imply there is an easy cuddly option available, and that May is being irresponsible for not taking it.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
You are absolutely right about the fact that the EU has been consistent in that aspect of their pronouncements. But then they go on to hold other negotiating positions that imply some preferential access to the Single market, because otherwise those positions make no sense.
But most countries have access to the Single Market, I am not sure what that buys us. I am sure there is going to be a fudge over trade of goods because that is in everyone's interest, atleast on a provisional basis, beyond that I have never been convinced there will be anything significant on offer.
The odds still would seem to favour the EU precipitating a UK walkout due to inflexibility on the divorce bill. May would then to brand the EU as dogmatic and unreasonable, and the EU to brand the UK tight-fisted and unneighbourly. Then a quick interim FTA on goods will get cobbled together along with some bromides about committing to negotiating in good faith for a permanent deal, which in reality will see the interim deal extended every few years for the next couple of decades or so.
If there is a deal, both sides will have lots of unhappy people blaming their government for not getting enough, and relatively few people happy about whatever fudge is arrived it. An explosive walk out is politically much more acceptable all around, the aura of having been sticking up for your side against a bully, and someone to point at and blame.
Corbyn wanted the IRA to win. Any examination of his engagement with Northern Ireland shows this. Two weeks after the Brighton bombing he invited Sinn Fein leaders to the House of Commons. He stood in silence to honour the IRA dead. He voted against the Good Friday agreement. I don't know if Nick Palmer is being naive, disingenuous or dishonest, but he is wrong. Islington, like Camden, was a very Irish and very pro-Republican in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Pubs played the Soldiers Song at closing time, there were regular collections for the provisionals and Sinn Fein. You did not get on in the Labour party there without solid Republican credentials. Things have changed, time has moved on, but Corbyn cannot undo his past. It's there and it's clear to see. The Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness because the government told her to. She also shook hands with countless others from all sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Show me one photo of Jeremy Corbyn shaking hands with a loyalist or a unionist; one of him meeting them or marching with them. There are none. He regarded them as the enemy.
You forgot to include the British Army and police wounded personnel in your list of people beside whom he did not stand, smiling broadly, let alone shake hands with. In his non-partisan engagement in the cause of peace, that is.
And NPXMP either has a terrible memory or is less than scrupulously honest. With himself, of course.
I asked NP yesterday what his recollection of his comments re his canvas returns in 2015 was. I may be wrong , but I seem to recall NP said it was too close to call, when in fact Soubry won big..
His own vote was only 320 down on 2010 so I guess his canvass returns would be ok. It looks to me that Broxtowe 2010 Lib Dems swung en masse to Anna Soubry. Which makes sense when you think about it.
I was in a cafe this morning looking at some election literature and an Italian friend said to me "what exactly is a hard Brexit?".
I was just about to answer when the truth dawned on me. I didn't know!
Like all flavours of Brexit the definitions are fluid.
There is only one flavour of BrExit, all other synthetic flavours are figments of the imagination of diehard remainers who want to imply there is an easy cuddly option available, and that May is being irresponsible for not taking it.
This is of course bollocks, the EU and all the other member states have been totally consistent for more than a year, there is either "Hard Brexit" or no BrExit, there is no option to have any control over freedom of movement and to stay in the single market.
While I agree that soft Brexit is a mirage, I think that one could usefuly define Hard Brexit as being outside the customs union and soft being within the CU, including being within the Single Market.
If we take that as a working definition then, Doc, we are on route to a Hard Brexit (as stated by the PM and as agreed by you and I on here many months ago).
Quite what a diamond-hard Brexit is (a phrase used recently by some on here) I have no idea.
A diamond hard Brexit would be one withsubstantial acrimony, such as litigation or WTO tariffs.
A car crash Brexit would be the above, without preparation, and looking increasingly likely.
Anyone who seriously believes Corbyn's backing (and it is backing) for the Provos can be palmed off needs their head examined.
Corbyn "backed" them, but SIS only "colluded" with them?
You know nothing about how counter insurgency works.
For a start SIS role in agent running within the Provos was peripheral. Go check your names for the security services. Might help you.
Peripheral might be too strong a word but there were at least four different agencies running informers inside PIRA. There was a lovely article in the Sunday Times(?) in the early nineties pointing out that if the diverse agencies involved cooperated more and spent less effort on turf wars they might be even more successful. A copy of that article, blown up to poster size, used to hang on the wall in an office of a fifth agency based at Stormont.
But most countries have access to the Single Market, I am not sure what that buys us. I am sure there is going to be a fudge over trade of goods because that is in everyone's interest, atleast on a provisional basis, beyond that I have never been convinced there will be anything significant on offer.
The odds still would seem to favour the EU precipitating a UK walkout due to inflexibility on the divorce bill. May would then to brand the EU as dogmatic and unreasonable, and the EU to brand the UK tight-fisted and unneighbourly. Then a quick interim FTA on goods will get cobbled together along with some bromides about committing to negotiating in good faith for a permanent deal, which in reality will see the interim deal extended every few years for the next couple of decades or so.
If there is a deal, both sides will have lots of unhappy people blaming their government for not getting enough, and relatively few people happy about whatever fudge is arrived it. An explosive walk out is politically much more acceptable all around, the aura of having been sticking up for your side against a bully, and someone to point at and blame.
/cynicism
I think our reads are the same. The logic for a deal is there, being in the economic interests of both parties. But the psychology is not. The EU feel a need for Brexit to fail, not just for the deal to be worse than membership. The UK has no incentive to do a bad deal.
This is why I have from the outset wondered whether an exit with no deal, followed by a cooling off period of several years before engaging in interests-based negotiations rather than political-baggage based negotiation might be the best approach to achieve an optimal long-term solution.
If Tim gets ejected from his seat they should #BringBackPaddy
If Tim gets ejected that would imply a complete wipeout of the Liberal Democrats in the HoC. I suppose under those circumstances drafting a leader from the Lords might be construed as a logical step, but also under those circumstances, who would care?
That said, there is no reason to suppose that Farron will lose or anywhere close. The also-ran vote shares are modest in W&L - the Tories would need a large amount of transfers directly from the Lib Dems to take it, and both national polling and the council results in the area suggest that this is highly improbable.
Look at the turnouts in the CCC elections. That relates to the extraordinary effort used by the LDs to get their remaining vote out. If you were an LD then they got you out on May 4. Thus the remaining 20% who will come out on June 8 are disproportionally hostile to Minor Fart - and by God they are hostile.
Comments
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tories-tipped-oust-snp-deputy-10416592
The gnashing and wailing from SCON about the Greens tactics would seem to have some basis to it !!
I'd be wary about piling onto the Tories at short odds in Scotland to be perfectly fair (Save BRS and DCT).
The majorities to overcome are still enormous.
If some of their ideas are good, then even if they are dismissed now because of him, they will come back even from those currently dismissing it - we see the same thing with TMay taking on Ed M's energy cap policy (though if that is indeed a good policy is far from agreed, but clearly she thinks it is).
The odds still would seem to favour the EU precipitating a UK walkout due to inflexibility on the divorce bill. May would then to brand the EU as dogmatic and unreasonable, and the EU to brand the UK tight-fisted and unneighbourly. Then a quick interim FTA on goods will get cobbled together along with some bromides about committing to negotiating in good faith for a permanent deal, which in reality will see the interim deal extended every few years for the next couple of decades or so.
If there is a deal, both sides will have lots of unhappy people blaming their government for not getting enough, and relatively few people happy about whatever fudge is arrived it. An explosive walk out is politically much more acceptable all around, the aura of having been sticking up for your side against a bully, and someone to point at and blame.
/cynicism
Which makes sense when you think about it.
A car crash Brexit would be the above, without preparation, and looking increasingly likely.
NEW THREAD
This is why I have from the outset wondered whether an exit with no deal, followed by a cooling off period of several years before engaging in interests-based negotiations rather than political-baggage based negotiation might be the best approach to achieve an optimal long-term solution.