About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
The background is that the police and the BBC worked together in advance of the raid, to the point that there was a BBC helicopter overhead as the police went in and the news were running it live like it was OJ Simpson, alongside “Cliff in Child Porn Raid” headlines.
He wasn’t there, no evidence was in the house and Sir Cliff was found completely innocent and not charged with any crime.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
I think its the "and then" that is not the case.
The house was raided. The BBC were there from the off.
Woodcock's resignation from Labour was inevitable but still significant.
To lose one MP....
Suspect a bunch of Labour moderates are hanging around to fight Brexit then departing the stage.
I think, given all prior evidence, they will always find excuses until the mandatory reselections come in. And then they're toast anyway. Or find a way to convert/repent.
It may be the opening for someone else but it won't be for Boris. He's finished, he's been exposed for what he is. Nobody in their right mind believes he is 'leader of the country' material.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
Tom Watson not on the case?
Leveson relates to the Press. The BBC is already regulated by Ofcom so no point them bothering with it since all they want is similar for newspapers.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
Hopefully it'll put a stop to the police going on these fishing expeditions. As it stands any crackpot can report a celebrity to the police who then report it to the media who put on a grand show which includes cameras as they break into the celebs house- in Cliffs case hellicopters because he lives behind a wall and he had large picture windows.
....within a few hours everyone knows about the arrest (and where they live and what their house looks like). Then anyone who might have met him and fancies some publicity remembers they've also been assaulted . It's a stain on any concept of natural justice
Good on him, finally someone with the balls to walk away from the antisemitic party.
Hope the Tories and LDs stand aside and let him run as an independent against Labour at the election, if we have one soon.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
Yes, I’d forgotten just how marginal the seat was, only 209 between Lab and Con. it’s a pretty certain Con gain now with Woodcock gone. There’s no way he’ll get a free run.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
Tom Watson not on the case?
Leveson relates to the Press. The BBC is already regulated by Ofcom so no point them bothering with it since all they want is similar for newspapers.
After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
Tom Watson not on the case?
Leveson relates to the Press. The BBC is already regulated by Ofcom so no point them bothering with it since all they want is similar for newspapers.
Leveson 2 goes way beyond anything Ofcom can do. It is the first step towards political control of the press.
After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.
I agree but I don't think it will happen because of the zeal of the campaigners who think naming people helps to encourage others to come forward with allegations.
After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.
I agree but I don't think it will happen because of the zeal of the campaigners who think naming people helps to encourage others to come forward with allegations.
Well if the name is revealed at the point of charge people can still come forward... But allowing people to retain anonymity up to the moment of charge means the Police have got to get the investigation to the point on it's own merits.
Moreover given the BBC have proved the media can't be trusted with the existing law as it is it would provide safe-guards against innocent people having their reputations trashed by malicious lies, fantasists, attention seekers and money-grabbers...
The police / cps record on all this celeb paedo stuff really needs investigating. In addition to the nick stuff, we had William roache case where the evidence was beyond flawed eg houses he never had access to, cars he never owned, incidents allegedly happening when he was on set all day...also plod / CPS cocked up rolf Harris case and he only got convicted because a member of the public volunteered evidence half way through trial.
And they are just for starters, there has been a long list of incompetence.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.
Yes, there’s an awfully fine line to be drawn between allowing justice to be open and seeing a completely unfounded allegation ruin someone’s life and reputation.
We also need to look at the statute of limitations and CPS guidance on minor historical offences. The ‘offence’ of an overly-familiar hug in a public place 30 or 40 years ago shouldn’t be the basis of a prosecution today.
Meanwhile the Met have 90 murders so far this year if they’re short of things to be looking at.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
I remember canvassing the 2015 elections in the far north of England. I had Labour voters (metaphorically) frothing at the mouth at a Miliband doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon. Not sure if she is still toxic out of Scotland....
"An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.
Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.
This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.
But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."
I am sure even you do not believe it was a Tory cock-up. He only voted on the two votes which were supposed to be close but did not vote on the others.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
So your "Centre" Party is going to go around England saying "vote for us we are going to break up the UK." Do you believe that to be the "centre" position?
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
So your "Centre" Party is going to go around England saying "vote for us we are going to break up the UK." Do you believe that to be the "centre" position?
All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.
The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!
And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
Deselected along with Guto Bebb
Honest question - do you think Soubry, Bebb, Wollaston et al would fare better at a subsequent election if they had been kicked out by May, or if they had left of their own accord? I honestly don't know the answer.
Sandpit, I did actually put an SNP poster in my (Oxfordshire) window at the 2015 election just to troll the local Tories (I'm not remotely Scottish). Amusingly Isabel Oakeshott saw it, tweeted a picture, and the Cybernats loved it...
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
I'm not sure what is centrist about overarching loyalty to the EU and wanting to effectively overturn the Referendum result. This position is not without support (albeit minority support) but it is an extreme position in the same way that proponents of a WTO exit are at the other extreme. And this is why I expect any such "centrist party" is doomed to failure- because their view of a central position bears little resemblance to that of the voters.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
I remember canvassing the 2015 elections in the far north of England. I had Labour voters (metaphorically) frothing at the mouth at a Miliband doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon. Not sure if she is still toxic out of Scotland....
On that, I think that like most things, Brexit has upended the calculation - and your views will largely be dictated by your views on Brexit. If you think a hard no deal Brexit is a remotely sane option then they are nefarious Celts defying the will of the people. If it's self-destructive madness they are at least an adult in a room filled with lunatic Mogglodytes..
Soubry herself is an example - in 2015 she'd have been on the telly at a moment's notice to push the 'Coalition of Chaos' line. Now she views a similar arrangement as our least bad option.
Soubry herself is an example - in 2015 she'd have been on the telly at a moment's notice to push the 'Coalition of Chaos' line. Now she views a similar arrangement as our least bad option.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
Deselected along with Guto Bebb
Honest question - do you think Soubry, Bebb, Wollaston et al would fare better at a subsequent election if they had been kicked out by May, or if they had left of their own accord? I honestly don't know the answer.
Sandpit, I did actually put an SNP poster in my (Oxfordshire) window at the 2015 election just to troll the local Tories (I'm not remotely Scottish). Amusingly Isabel Oakeshott saw it, tweeted a picture, and the Cybernats loved it...
She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
Yes, she talks far too much common sense to remain for much longer in what has become of the Conservative Party. I wish she'd defect to us... but I don't think she ever will.
The police / cps record on all this celeb paedo stuff really needs investigating. In addition to the nick stuff, we had William roache case where the evidence was beyond flawed eg houses he never had access to, cars he never owned, incidents allegedly happening when he was on set all day...also plod / CPS cocked up rolf Harris case and he only got convicted because a member of the public volunteered evidence half way through trial.
And they are just for starters, there has been a long list of incompetence.
The Nick stuff should see Tom Watson sweating much more than normal.
It seems no coincidence that the Tory rumours surfaced just as Lord Janner's case was coming to court. No coincidence at all.
She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
Yes, she talks far too much common sense to remain for much longer in what has become of the Conservative Party. I wish she'd defect to us... but I don't think she ever will.
She sees the EU as more important than the Union of the United Kingdom.
She won't fight the next election as an official Conservative and Unionist party candidate.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
Deselected along with Guto Bebb
Honest question - do you think Soubry, Bebb, Wollaston et al would fare better at a subsequent election if they had been kicked out by May, or if they had left of their own accord? I honestly don't know the answer.
Sandpit, I did actually put an SNP poster in my (Oxfordshire) window at the 2015 election just to troll the local Tories (I'm not remotely Scottish). Amusingly Isabel Oakeshott saw it, tweeted a picture, and the Cybernats loved it...
That’s quite funny, but the Conservative poster of Ed Miliband in Alex Salmond’s pocket in 2015 was probably the difference between getting the majority and not. It wouldn’t work with Corbyn and Sturgeon in quite the same way though, depending as it did on the wider perceptions of the individuals involved.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
So your "Centre" Party is going to go around England saying "vote for us we are going to break up the UK." Do you believe that to be the "centre" position?
All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.
The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!
And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.
“Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
50-50 whether Dan Johnson gets fired or appointed special correspondent for chicken farming in the Outer Hebrides. His manager will get fired
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
Deselected along with Guto Bebb
Deselection seems quite popular with Tories, much more so than Labour.
Purge the counter revolutionaries and the Kulaks!
Any MP who hands government to Corbyn knowingly, as happened last night, should be deselected.
But it would not have had that effect because the government would have won any Confidence Vote called. Were he to vote against the Government on that , I would agree that deselection would be justified - but that strikes me as most unlikely.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
I noticed that as well.
Doubt it myself (the loose alliance thing), but it would be hugely entertaining. Of course there's polling that suggests that Brexit true believers would see the loss of Scotland (& NI) as a price worth paying for EU departure, so extremists may be more philosophical than one might assume.
edit: what am I thinking, of course they wouldn't!
The police / cps record on all this celeb paedo stuff really needs investigating. In addition to the nick stuff, we had William roache case where the evidence was beyond flawed eg houses he never had access to, cars he never owned, incidents allegedly happening when he was on set all day...also plod / CPS cocked up rolf Harris case and he only got convicted because a member of the public volunteered evidence half way through trial.
And they are just for starters, there has been a long list of incompetence.
The Nick stuff should see Tom Watson sweating much more than normal.
It seems no coincidence that the Tory rumours surfaced just as Lord Janner's case was coming to court. No coincidence at all.
Given all we see about the Cliff Richard case and many others, it’s amazing that “Nick” can be charged with numerous offences of deception yet still not be allowed to be named by the press.
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
The BBC moaning about Cliff Richard verdict. They were just wrong and need to accept the verdict
Well, they can seek permission to appeal. Having only skimmed the judgment I don't know if they will get it or not, but it's very long so I'm sure they can find an appeal point in there somewhere if they look hard enough.
What strikes me as particularly concerning is the judge's comments on the BBC's witnesses. They all come across as being more concerned with protecting their own and the corporation's backs than being candid with the court. That's the kind of thinking that got them into the whole mess with Saville, Hall, Harris & co in the first place. Clearly they've learned nothing.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
I'm not sure what is centrist about overarching loyalty to the EU and wanting to effectively overturn the Referendum result. This position is not without support (albeit minority support) but it is an extreme position in the same way that proponents of a WTO exit are at the other extreme. And this is why I expect any such "centrist party" is doomed to failure- because their view of a central position bears little resemblance to that of the voters.
Running with the idea, you might get the sort of arrangements that occurred from 1918 -1931. Assuming a sort of Coalition of Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP, rebel Conservatives and rebel Labour, they'd mostly give each other a clear run in the constituencies which they held (probably some local parties would rebel and field candidates) while putting up agreed candidates in seats held by official Labour and Conservative candidates. I'd still expect official Labour and Conservatives to win the vast majority of seats though, as First Past the Post benefits parties with concentrated support.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
50-50 whether Dan Johnson gets fired or appointed special correspondent for chicken farming in the Outer Hebrides. His manager will get fired
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.
Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.
Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
Britain’s relationship with the EU is likely to be the dominant theme of British politics for the foreseeable future. Whatever way forward is eventually selected, it will command the support of at best a third of the population.
Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
Yes, Hammond is doing a fine job. Sadly undervalued by Tory activists.
All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.
The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!
And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.
“Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.
Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.
If a party was to grab the post Brexit agenda and run with it they may do very well.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.
“Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
Cracking article from Martin Wolf on the US political situation. My fear is that we are going down this route here, although thankfully our Conservative party is still much more honourable and decent than the US republican party. https://www.ft.com/content/3aea8668-88e2-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
Looks like Woodcocks Barrow and Furness CLP were not too happy with him, and were wanting to deselect him. Looks like he walked before he was pushed. Last majority 208, so it doesn't look like he was too popular in the constituency either.
I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.
The huge flaw in your logic is that the only way to make Brexit go away is to stop it from happening. If people are bored of it, they won't support it through thick and thin.
About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.
I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
50-50 whether Dan Johnson gets fired or appointed special correspondent for chicken farming in the Outer Hebrides. His manager will get fired
Actually fired for conduct, as opposed to being made redundant on 12 months’ notice / gardening leave / retired with his full final salary pension still intact?
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.
Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.
If a party was to grab the post Brexit agenda and run with it they may do very well.
Just a shame no-one can work out what that agenda might be.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
Would they want him? It's a winnable seat, and at some point Corbyn won't be leader of the Labour party, Woodcock might then decide to rejoin. He's also currently under investigation...
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
The genuinely patriotic Casino Royale has been silent since the Chequers implosion, which speaks volumes.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
Yes, Hammond is doing a fine job. Sadly undervalued by Tory activists.
I suppose the problem for the tories is that these days good news is not considered news
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
It is only on Brexit that Soubry is not a mainstream Conservative, indeed her views would have been quite unremarkeable just a few years ago.
Woodcock, I do not know as well, but apart from being pro Brexit and Pro nuclear (once again quite unremarkeable positions in Labour just a few years ago) what is there to suggest that he would fit in the Tory party?
Brexit simply does not match much of the rest of politics, helped by being in many theoretical forms, from F*** Business fortress Britain, to Hannanite Swashbuckling Singapore.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
"An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.
Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.
This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.
But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."
I am sure even you do not believe it was a Tory cock-up. He only voted on the two votes which were supposed to be close but did not vote on the others.
Basically, Tories cannot be trusted
Wasn't there a story on here a while back with Corbyn saying Labour wouldn't agree to pairing with the Tories any more? Seems clear why...
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
Hope so. Barrow’s a shoo-in if he does, although Simon Fell, who came so close last year, might be a little peeved.
"An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.
Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.
This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.
But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."
I am sure even you do not believe it was a Tory cock-up. He only voted on the two votes which were supposed to be close but did not vote on the others.
Basically, Tories cannot be trusted
Wasn't there a story on here a while back with Corbyn saying Labour wouldn't agree to pairing with the Tories any more? Seems clear why...
Other paired Tories apparently confirm they were pressured by whips to break the arrangement. Which I suggest paints Lewis as not an honest man.
The appropriate response should be for other MPs to refuse to pair with Lewis in future.
Cracking article from Martin Wolf on the US political situation. My fear is that we are going down this route here, although thankfully our Conservative party is still much more honourable and decent than the US republican party. https://www.ft.com/content/3aea8668-88e2-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
Paywalled for me but if I had to point to parallels between the US Republicans and our Conservatives, the obvious one is that both are filled with legislators who criticise their president or prime minister almost daily but who take no steps to remove him or her.
What is more worrying is that under Cameron's leadership (although not necessarily instigated by him) the Conservatives do seem to have adopted some practices from the Republicans, most notably around voter suppression and gerrymandering (which ironically cost Cameron the referendum and his premiership) and demonisation of opponents -- not the devil eyes thing but vetoing Gordon Brown for the IMF, for instance, which parallels Republicans refusing to consider Obama's nominated Supreme Court judge.
Would they want him? It's a winnable seat, and at some point Corbyn won't be leader of the Labour party, Woodcock might then decide to rejoin. He's also currently under investigation...
Does Labour's investigation into him continue now that he's completely removed himself from their jurisdiction? Seems a bit pointless really.
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.
Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
Britain’s relationship with the EU is likely to be the dominant theme of British politics for the foreseeable future. Whatever way forward is eventually selected, it will command the support of at best a third of the population.
Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
Maybe so - but I don't believe it to be a very salient issue when it comes to elections . The 2017 election was not about Brexit despite that being May's justification for calling it - and the next election will end up focussing on other issues.
All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.
We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.
Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.
If a party was to grab the post Brexit agenda and run with it they may do very well.
Just a shame no-one can work out what that agenda might be.
Knife and violent crime Transport and infrastructure NHS for the 21st century Etc...
They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.
“Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
I don’t recall saying that the negotiations would be a walk in the park, but I certainly didn’t expect the EU to actively persue the lose-lose outcome or threaten to annex 5,460 square miles of British territory.
I do think that negotiating from WTO terms is going to result in a better long term outcome for the UK, than negotiating when the EU are threatening planes not flying and shortages of food and medicines.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
Comments
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sir-cliff-richard-obe-v-bbc/
'Judge says if Police hadn’t given info to BBC they feared their investigation would be damaged'
He wasn’t there, no evidence was in the house and Sir Cliff was found completely innocent and not charged with any crime.
The house was raided. The BBC were there from the off.
Why?
It relates to this: https://news.sky.com/story/officer-reveals-why-he-told-bbc-about-cliff-richard-raid-11333890
....within a few hours everyone knows about the arrest (and where they live and what their house looks like). Then anyone who might have met him and fancies some publicity remembers they've also been assaulted . It's a stain on any concept of natural justice
Moreover given the BBC have proved the media can't be trusted with the existing law as it is it would provide safe-guards against innocent people having their reputations trashed by malicious lies, fantasists, attention seekers and money-grabbers...
And they are just for starters, there has been a long list of incompetence.
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
We also need to look at the statute of limitations and CPS guidance on minor historical offences. The ‘offence’ of an overly-familiar hug in a public place 30 or 40 years ago shouldn’t be the basis of a prosecution today.
Meanwhile the Met have 90 murders so far this year if they’re short of things to be looking at.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
I remember canvassing the 2015 elections in the far north of England. I had Labour voters (metaphorically) frothing at the mouth at a Miliband doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon. Not sure if she is still toxic out of Scotland....
Basically, Tories cannot be trusted
Do you believe that to be the "centre" position?
The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!
And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
Sandpit, I did actually put an SNP poster in my (Oxfordshire) window at the 2015 election just to troll the local Tories (I'm not remotely Scottish). Amusingly Isabel Oakeshott saw it, tweeted a picture, and the Cybernats loved it...
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
I'm not sure what is centrist about overarching loyalty to the EU and wanting to effectively overturn the Referendum result. This position is not without support (albeit minority support) but it is an extreme position in the same way that proponents of a WTO exit are at the other extreme. And this is why I expect any such "centrist party" is doomed to failure- because their view of a central position bears little resemblance to that of the voters.
Purge the counter revolutionaries and the Kulaks!
On that, I think that like most things, Brexit has upended the calculation - and your views will largely be dictated by your views on Brexit. If you think a hard no deal Brexit is a remotely sane option then they are nefarious Celts defying the will of the people. If it's self-destructive madness they are at least an adult in a room filled with lunatic Mogglodytes..
Soubry herself is an example - in 2015 she'd have been on the telly at a moment's notice to push the 'Coalition of Chaos' line. Now she views a similar arrangement as our least bad option.
It seems no coincidence that the Tory rumours surfaced just as Lord Janner's case was coming to court. No coincidence at all.
CPI for June 2018 is 2.3% not 2.4%
See https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
She won't fight the next election as an official Conservative and Unionist party candidate.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-conservative-brexit-choice-seek-to-park-the-uk-in-the-eea-under-a-new-tory-leader-or-press-on.html
... while Tim Montgomerie denounces everyone including Thatcher for being EU stooges.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1019212013115969537
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1019474294198423552
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1019478470655660032
“Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
Brexit is a threat to the Union, not the EU. The headbangers will get their dream of Little England, unencumbered by any pesky foreigners...
Doubt it myself (the loose alliance thing), but it would be hugely entertaining. Of course there's polling that suggests that Brexit true believers would see the loss of Scotland (& NI) as a price worth paying for EU departure, so extremists may be more philosophical than one might assume.
edit: what am I thinking, of course they wouldn't!
The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.
You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
What strikes me as particularly concerning is the judge's comments on the BBC's witnesses. They all come across as being more concerned with protecting their own and the corporation's backs than being candid with the court. That's the kind of thinking that got them into the whole mess with Saville, Hall, Harris & co in the first place. Clearly they've learned nothing.
Running with the idea, you might get the sort of arrangements that occurred from 1918 -1931. Assuming a sort of Coalition of Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP, rebel Conservatives and rebel Labour, they'd mostly give each other a clear run in the constituencies which they held (probably some local parties would rebel and field candidates) while putting up agreed candidates in seats held by official Labour and Conservative candidates. I'd still expect official Labour and Conservatives to win the vast majority of seats though, as First Past the Post benefits parties with concentrated support.
Edited extra bit: really not my areas, so I could be wrong, of course.
Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44858238
Loonies. I look forward to enhancing my education when/if I play the next Tomb Raider game.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
Reading this article this morning:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/may-and-the-overpowering-stench-of-treachery/
It’s clear why Davis resigned, his whole department having been undermined by Number 10.
If a party was to grab the post Brexit agenda and run with it they may do very well.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
My fear is that we are going down this route here, although thankfully our Conservative party is still much more honourable and decent than the US republican party.
https://www.ft.com/content/3aea8668-88e2-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43714534
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/barrow/Barrow-MP-saddened-by-email-plot-to-oust-him-9255c2d3-7ffa-4238-94f1-0253f3b39fef-ds
It's a winnable seat, and at some point Corbyn won't be leader of the Labour party, Woodcock might then decide to rejoin. He's also currently under investigation...
Woodcock, I do not know as well, but apart from being pro Brexit and Pro nuclear (once again quite unremarkeable positions in Labour just a few years ago) what is there to suggest that he would fit in the Tory party?
Brexit simply does not match much of the rest of politics, helped by being in many theoretical forms, from F*** Business fortress Britain, to Hannanite Swashbuckling Singapore.
The appropriate response should be for other MPs to refuse to pair with Lewis in future.
What is more worrying is that under Cameron's leadership (although not necessarily instigated by him) the Conservatives do seem to have adopted some practices from the Republicans, most notably around voter suppression and gerrymandering (which ironically cost Cameron the referendum and his premiership) and demonisation of opponents -- not the devil eyes thing but vetoing Gordon Brown for the IMF, for instance, which parallels Republicans refusing to consider Obama's nominated Supreme Court judge.
Transport and infrastructure
NHS for the 21st century
Etc...
I do think that negotiating from WTO terms is going to result in a better long term outcome for the UK, than negotiating when the EU are threatening planes not flying and shortages of food and medicines.