Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
And you appear to have completely missed the point.
May is begging them for stuff.
They are pointing out the stuff she is begging for we have right now, and is in jeopardy only because we are leaving.
Dummkopfs.
But the UK is leaving. The question now is what comes after.
Easy. Going back in again.
Can't see that happening in the next 18 months.
No, we have to leave first.
Yeah, and there's the thirty year gap in between before another referendum. Only fair
About 10 years, I reckon. We have to start accession talks before it can go to a referendum.
You really think they'll want the UK back after having forced them to go through this process less than a decade earlier?
I had got the impression on here that the UK's financial contribution to the EU was so huge and our appetite for German cars so insatiable that we've got the whip hand in negotiations. On the same basis surely they'd be gagging to have us back?
Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick.
Certainly what you would think if this was only place you got your info. Maybe it is not a bluff after all and the UK team are as crap and deluded as they seem to be and the EU really will kick them in the nuts.
The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.
The weird thing about the polling at the moment is that so many remainers still seem to think that Labour and Corbyn are the answer to their prayers. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary a very significant proportion of Labour's support seems to be under the delusion that Labour is committed to remaining in the Single Market, for example.
Corbyn has managed to maintain some sort of constructive ambiguity about his position (at least for those not really paying attention) and it has starved the Lib Dems of their natural support. If the Lib Dems had any sense they would be doing everything in their power to expose the fact that it is difficult to get a fag paper between Corbyn's and May's position on Brexit and trying to peel away Labour supporters who actually care.
I suspect the numbers who do care are less than generally thought (notwithstanding the evidence on this Board) but it would be a start. With 40 odd percent still thinking that Brexit is a mistake the party of remain really should be in double figures. And it isn't despite these excellent bye-election results.
You can think it is a mistake but still prefer a Labour government to either see it through or have a softer version. The more realistic remainers realise you cannot reverse the result and in many places voting for the Lib Dems is a waste.
That and even those who don't want it and think Labour do want it have other priorities.
Yes but what about the Labour supporters in Tory Lib Dem marginals? Why are they not being picked up? Even if you are not motivated to vote Lib Dem in a Labour/Tory seat why are Labour voters not voting more tactically where theirs is the wasted vote?
The problem for the Lib Dems is that the Tories are so far ahead in most such seats that even tactical voting by Labour wouldn't help them.
There is a lot of political volatility as shown last spring.
Plenty are willing to vote LD locally even if less keen nationally.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
fwiw, I would switch from Lab to Con, were Anna Soubry to be elected leader!
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
fwiw, I would switch from Lab to Con, were Anna Soubry to be elected leader!
More than outweighed by the number of Leave voting Tories who would switch from Tory to UKIP or even Tory to Labour were Soubry Tory leader (Corbyn at least backs Brexit and leaving the single market unlike Soubry)
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.
I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
fwiw, I would switch from Lab to Con, were Anna Soubry to be elected leader!
Me too! Brexit would be dead! Huzzah! Anyway, just off to photograph the squadron of pigs flying by.
I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.
More than outweighed by the number of Leave voting Tories who would switch from Tory to UKIP or even Tory to Labour were Soubry Tory leader (Corbyn at least backs Brexit and leaving the single market unlike Soubry)
Compensated by the previous Tory voters who deserted the party last time because of Brexit
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.
I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
Yes, by 2022 all will have new leaders, and I think Corbyn would be on the back benches happily as a latter day Tony Benn.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.
I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
Last night I had a dream that Rory Stewart had been elected Tory leader.
The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
It's a good point, but these byelections show the Lib Dems achieving stunning results if they get cut through. Things Must Change is a big force in politics right now and all parties are trying to catch the market. But they are struggling to be both different and coherent. The Lib Dems need to stress their differences more, for their own good.
The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
Plus after the Blair and Cameron governments they have effectively had a government which has represented them for most of the past 2 decades, they will have to get used to being out of power for a bit and the Socialists and pro Brexit social conservatives getting a chance
More than outweighed by the number of Leave voting Tories who would switch from Tory to UKIP or even Tory to Labour were Soubry Tory leader (Corbyn at least backs Brexit and leaving the single market unlike Soubry)
Compensated by the previous Tory voters who deserted the party last time because of Brexit
Not that many, most Labour gains came in Tory Leave seats at the last general election, Tory Remain seats went LD almost as often as Labour.
All Tory gains from Labour came in Labour Leave seats
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
'Pleasant pragmatism' appeals to nice upper-middle class people who live in nice upper-middle class safezones. People who have nice lives with much to lose from change.
But 'pleasant pragmatism' has led to a collapse in home ownership among the young, the student debt disaster, triple lock pensions, Middle Eastern warmongering, 239 consecutive months of trade deficits, government debt in trillions, uncontrolled immigration and leaving the EU.
The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.
Yes, fair enough!
Although I support Corbyn and his potential to transform society for the better, the person in the world that I admire the most is a very successful capitalist.
Elon Musk is making an enormous contribution to the future of the human race by his promotion of, and investment in, sustainable energy, planetary exploration and harnessing of artificial intelligence. It's a step up from potholes.
We can expect another humiliating May retreat very soon, then, as the Brexit loons go beserk.
May doesn't need to make that particular humiliating retreat until next year, after we formally left the EU and by then it will likely be someone else who makes it. May is entirely focused on getting to March next year and out of the EU without everything going tits up. Procrastination is the name of the game.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.
I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
Last night I had a dream that Rory Stewart had been elected Tory leader.
I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.
Yes, fair enough!
Although I support Corbyn and his potential to transform society for the better, the person in the world that I admire the most is a very successful capitalist.
Elon Musk is making an enormous contribution to the future of the human race by his promotion of, and investment in, sustainable energy, planetary exploration and harnessing of artificial intelligence. It's a step up from potholes.
The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
Good inside knowledge: Socialists can actually stand for an anthem.....
The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
Except for Cameron winning a majority like that?
He won a majority in 2015 promising a referendum on the EU, he did not win a majority in 2010 when that was not a promise in the Tory manifesto
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
Do you know the words?
Lyric sheets were distributed!
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.
I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
Last night I had a dream that Rory Stewart had been elected Tory leader.
Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)
The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.
Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.
'Pleasant pragmatism' appeals to nice upper-middle class people who live in nice upper-middle class safezones. People who have nice lives with much to lose from change.
But 'pleasant pragmatism' has led to a collapse in home ownership among the young, the student debt disaster, triple lock pensions, Middle Eastern warmongering, 239 consecutive months of trade deficits, government debt in trillions, uncontrolled immigration and leaving the EU.
The upper middle classes were of course the only social group which voted for Remain in 2016 and May's Tories in 2017, the status quo was fine by them
The reference to remaining in the EAW is the first part of May's negotiation approach I've actively disliked. I presume it stems from her authoritarian streak, which is a muscle she toned during her Home Secretary days.
If we need any form of extradition treaty it should be bilateral with proper safeguards for British citizens being extradited to European countries that don't, quite frankly, share our standards of individual rights, or jurisprudence.
I would trust judgements on very few cases brought to a Bulgarian court.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
I think an Osborne led Conservative Party would have been hovering around 30% very quickly.
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
Nick, whilst you are on, do you have any more information on Labour's proposed animal rights legislation, in particular the proposal (as I think you said, sorry if I got it wrong) to allow protesters onto land the hunt may be going over?
The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.
Sounds familiar.
You had you chance and bottled it.
You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it. Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.
Sounds familiar.
You had you chance and bottled it.
You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it. Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
You just love emigrants pontificating on the UK and Scotland in particular.
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
LibDems too have a big influx of enthusiastic "amateurs". As an old stalwart, I'm having to prepare detailed telling instructions for people who have never done it before and need a bit of reassurance. When they've done it once, they'll be flying.
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
Bloody pinkos. In mine a spirited rendition of the Horst Wessel Lied before the Ladies Social Report.
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
In my ultra-marginal of Bedford the local LAB party largely ignored last year's general election and it was the Tories and LDs who had GOTV ops. As it turned out LAB gained the seat back with a 3 figure majority.
On the planned new boundaries CON wins by just 9 votes
The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.
Sounds familiar.
You had you chance and bottled it.
You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it. Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
LibDems too have a big influx of enthusiastic "amateurs". As an old stalwart, I'm having to prepare detailed telling instructions for people who have never done it before and need a bit of reassurance. When they've done it once, they'll be flying.
Both LDs and Labour have had mass influxes of new members since Brexit, and keen to be more than clicktivists. Tories are fading away, probably only 70 000 members now. Hence the need for clear instruction needed by some parties, not others.
Brexit and Corbynism have at least reinvigorated some parties. Mayism? less so...
Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
Bloody pinkos. In mine a spirited rendition of the Horst Wessel Lied before the Ladies Social Report.
Our branch has a Taliban-intolerance to singing.....
Talking of enthusiastic amateurs, one of my ex-colleagues has accused PETA of encouraging some young female members to go topless to draw attention to their cause. I, of course, admonished him and explained that it's all right for them to strip because they're doing it for free. Page Three girls are pressurised into taking large sums of money for it - so that makes it slavery.
They certainly give the cause publicity. But then I am fairly shallow.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
In my ultra-marginal of Bedford the local LAB party largely ignored last year's general election and it was the Tories and LDs who had GOTV ops. As it turned out LAB gained the seat back with a 3 figure majority.
On the planned new boundaries CON wins by just 9 votes
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I don't think holding on is working for them. There's a possibility to reinvent themselves as the party of opportunity, international connection and liberal values. Brexit is the catalyst rather than the be all and end all. The two main parties have become very inward looking so that's the LD's chance. Worth them risking it in my view
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.
Sounds familiar.
You had you chance and bottled it.
You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it. Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I don't think holding on is working for them. There's a possibility to reinvent themselves as the party of opportunity, international connection and liberal values. Brexit is the catalyst rather than the be all and end all. The two main parties have become very inward looking so that's the LD's chance. Worth them risking it in my view
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
It would cost more to means test and adminster paying / not paying etc rather than just making meals free for all.
The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
LibDems too have a big influx of enthusiastic "amateurs". As an old stalwart, I'm having to prepare detailed telling instructions for people who have never done it before and need a bit of reassurance. When they've done it once, they'll be flying.
Both LDs and Labour have had mass influxes of new members since Brexit, and keen to be more than clicktivists. Tories are fading away, probably only 70 000 members now. Hence the need for clear instruction needed by some parties, not others.
Brexit and Corbynism have at least reinvigorated some parties. Mayism? less so...
Tim Bale's recent research showed the average Tory, Labour and LD member was each in their 50s, I know a number of UKIP activists who are now Tory activists since Brexit too
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
GIN, Merkel was at the kidding , poking a stick at the hapless UK whilst laughing up her cuff. Germans really do have a wicked sense of humour after all.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
Quite. I'm just probing Charles's inconsistencies. A Socratic enquiry.
I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet!
Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.
Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.
Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.
The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.
Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.
There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.
There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
A slight extension of current availability overall
I would point out that the LibDems increased their vote count by almost a third last May, and ended up only just behind the Labour Party in terms of absolute votes: it's just that, in absolute terms, the Conservatives were up more.
Comments
Plenty are willing to vote LD locally even if less keen nationally.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/964808218240278528
Very strange. I may go and see my GP.
Each takes the Democrat's prospects out a notch, principally in struggling to hold blue seats in red states.
As most people would understand control of the Senate, it looks pretty tough for the Dems. As Betfair understands it, very unlikely indeed.
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp/status/964811569099132928
All Tory gains from Labour came in Labour Leave seats
Chapeaux.
But 'pleasant pragmatism' has led to a collapse in home ownership among the young, the student debt disaster, triple lock pensions, Middle Eastern warmongering, 239 consecutive months of trade deficits, government debt in trillions, uncontrolled immigration and leaving the EU.
Elon Musk is making an enormous contribution to the future of the human race by his promotion of, and investment in, sustainable energy, planetary exploration and harnessing of artificial intelligence. It's a step up from potholes.
They still do.
On the EAW it clearly does have some role, but even with the benefit of a pretty chunking briefing paper (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/16/16.pdf) I am still not clear on how many references were made to the ECJ (CJEU in the paper) on EAW matters.
I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
If we need any form of extradition treaty it should be bilateral with proper safeguards for British citizens being extradited to European countries that don't, quite frankly, share our standards of individual rights, or jurisprudence.
I would trust judgements on very few cases brought to a Bulgarian court.
Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/43095324
Interesting choice of order in the BBC headline.
Elise Christie must be better known for the 'Frank Spencer' performances then for the times she actually wins medals.
On the planned new boundaries CON wins by just 9 votes
Morning Malc!
Brexit and Corbynism have at least reinvigorated some parties. Mayism? less so...
Talking of enthusiastic amateurs, one of my ex-colleagues has accused PETA of encouraging some young female members to go topless to draw attention to their cause. I, of course, admonished him and explained that it's all right for them to strip because they're doing it for free. Page Three girls are pressurised into taking large sums of money for it - so that makes it slavery.
They certainly give the cause publicity. But then I am fairly shallow.
Anyway, I'm hoping for Bandiera Rossa next month.
https://twitter.com/melaniesmallman/status/964825598853042176
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2240457/orange-order-joke-shooting-tims-college-students-threatened/
Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
The allegations include sex with children. The CEO's holier-than-thou outrage that people are upset by this is... not wise.
https://twitter.com/theredroar/status/964831970067959808
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/romney-utah-campaign/553472/