Having largely agreed with Osborne on election night that May was a dead woman walking and having got stung as a result I am inclined to go long on May at the moment. It’s not that she is any good ( she isn’t) but that there is no consensus on who would be better.
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.
A May Vs Corbyn rematch is still the most likely combination for the next election.
Excluding ill-health, I think the only way that Mrs May will cease to be PM next year is if she loses a leadership confidence motion from Tory MPs. In that unlikely event the Tory Government will also lose a vote of confidence in the House because no Tory successor will be acceptable to a majority of the House.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
Most likely we will stay in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the withdrawal agreement and transition period and that should be enough to get through the House with Chequers used as the starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
Yes I also find #3 on Barnesian's outline the one I'm not sure about; I think that if we get there, there's a Commons vote on the Boles plan to join the EEA temporarily, and I'm not sure whether there would be a no confidence vote on that measure, if only proposed once Cheequers had been voted down. I would expect her to walk a confidence vote in that scenario, and I'd be less sure if she was going to 2nd referendum.
I do think Stephen Lloyd's pledge not to vote against should be making waves though - if even the Lib Dems aren't voting against in full there could be a lot of abstentions from Labour?
Having largely agreed with Osborne on election night that May was a dead woman walking and having got stung as a result I am inclined to go long on May at the moment. It’s not that she is any good ( she isn’t) but that there is no consensus on who would be better.
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.
A May Vs Corbyn rematch is still the most likely combination for the next election.
And Jezza with a nice majority at the end of it...
Is it me or is BBC news becoming totally unhinged over the Brexit this week?
It's actually unwatchable at the moment...
I found the way that stress testing of our banking system was presented last week bordering on the perverse. I really can’t believe that those very well paid chaps and chapesses at the BBC could be that stupid. It was wilful misrepresentation.
I do think Stephen Lloyd's pledge not to vote against should be making waves though - if even the Lib Dems aren't voting against in full there could be a lot of abstentions from Labour?
Yes, and indeed some actively voting in favour to avoid chaos (in addition to the small number of Labour Leaver MPs)
Having largely agreed with Osborne on election night that May was a dead woman walking and having got stung as a result I am inclined to go long on May at the moment. It’s not that she is any good ( she isn’t) but that there is no consensus on who would be better.
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.
A May Vs Corbyn rematch is still the most likely combination for the next election.
It’s incredible isn’t it? Arguably the worst 2 candidates in my adult lifetime and they both get another go!
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
Australia doesn't operate an immigration system based on skills?
Yes of course it does. That is why they let me in.
Go on. Put us out of our misery.
They felt Australian political discourse needed jolting out of its boring, rational rut ?
I’ve just dipped in and out on here this but it seems to me that the MAC report has highlighted what has been obvious for a long time.we dont really need low skill immigration, at the cost of unemployed low skill U.K. nationals. Conversely, the focus of the Tories on limiting immigration has meant that high skilled immigration has suffered, and we need more of this. Also in general we emigrate to retire, and foreign nationals come here to work. I have never met a foriegn national who has retired to th U.K. I know of many people who have gone ethe other way.
Has anyone met someone who has come to the UK to retire?
Finns? I expect even British weather looks sunnier to them than back home
Good point plus of course putting in EU migration controls is simply to build a Maginot Line to repel foreigners.
What would a Topping immigration control look like ?
How it is now( which isn't good for poor area's)open borders to the world - what is it ?
It would look pretty much the same as it does right now. Which "poor area's" did you have in mind?
The one i live in,it looks even poorer with the poorest of the poor from the new countries of the eastern block.
May I ask what part of London you live ?
You may. It is the glorious region of Acton.
And you?
Bradford west.
And what would you change about Bradford West's immigration policy if you could? Is it pretty bad at the moment?
Don't get me wrong,I want immigration but only immigration the country needs,is that wrong ?
Yes and no. One of the things that we have agreed to in order to be a community of nations with the EU27 is that our citizens have the right to go where they want. Several studies have shown this has a certain but by no means conclusive effect on GDP and per capita GDP. But I am not hung up on immigration and I believe that many Leavers (sorry not sure if you are one) are precisely hung up on immigration regardless of the economic arguments one way or the other. It is more often than not an excuse which politicians of all stripes use to blame their failings on.
I'm *glad* they didn't break down Merkel's door to ensure a soft Brexit with free trade. Cheating huns the lot of 'em. Bring back Austin, Sunbeam, and Alvis! Maybe not De Lorean though, at least without a working flux capacitor.
Soon you will be able to bet on the length of pit-stop, how many swear words a driver uses over the radio and how many days at year Lewis Hamilton spends in the UK.
I’m going to take a guess that this is a USA-specific deal. Different laws and rules in other markets and regions specifically ban gambling on sports events, advertising by gambling companies and gambling with overseas companies.
Lewis, definitely fewer than 90 days if he wants to avoid a large invoice from HMRC.
Excluding ill-health, I think the only way that Mrs May will cease to be PM next year is if she loses a leadership confidence motion from Tory MPs. In that unlikely event the Tory Government will also lose a vote of confidence in the House because no Tory successor will be acceptable to a majority of the House.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
Most likely we will stay in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the withdrawal agreement and transition period and that should be enough to get through the House with Chequers used as the starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
Yes I also find #3 on Barnesian's outline the one I'm not sure about; I think that if we get there, there's a Commons vote on the Boles plan to join the EEA temporarily, and I'm not sure whether there would be a no confidence vote on that measure, if only proposed once Cheequers had been voted down. I would expect her to walk a confidence vote in that scenario, and I'd be less sure if she was going to 2nd referendum.
I do think Stephen Lloyd's pledge not to vote against should be making waves though - if even the Lib Dems aren't voting against in full there could be a lot of abstentions from Labour?
Agreed I think she would get it through even if Corbyn opposes
Having largely agreed with Osborne on election night that May was a dead woman walking and having got stung as a result I am inclined to go long on May at the moment. It’s not that she is any good ( she isn’t) but that there is no consensus on who would be better.
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.
A May Vs Corbyn rematch is still the most likely combination for the next election.
And Jezza with a nice majority at the end of it...
There is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories with Yougov today since 2017 which would be enough to give May a small majority
Good point plus of course putting in EU migration controls is simply to build a Maginot Line to repel foreigners.
What would a Topping immigration control look like ?
How it is now( which isn't good for poor area's)open borders to the world - what is it ?
It would look pretty much the same as it does right now. Which "poor area's" did you have in mind?
The one i live in,it looks even poorer with the poorest of the poor from the new countries of the eastern block.
May I ask what part of London you live ?
You may. It is the glorious region of Acton.
And you?
Bradford west.
And what would you change about Bradford West's immigration policy if you could? Is it pretty bad at the moment?
Don't get me wrong,I want immigration but only immigration the country needs,is that wrong ?
Yes and no. One of the things that we have agreed to in order to be a community of nations with the EU27 is that our citizens have the right to go where they want. Several studies have shown this has a certain but by no means conclusive effect on GDP and per capita GDP. But I am not hung up on immigration and I believe that many Leavers (sorry not sure if you are one) are precisely hung up on immigration regardless of the economic arguments one way or the other. It is more often than not an excuse which politicians of all stripes use to blame their failings on.
We should have had immigration controls when Blair agreed to the new Eastern EU states on joining.
Britain one of the richest countries opening the borders to the poorest countries in Europe was a great idea if you don't live in poorer area's.
Good point plus of course putting in EU migration controls is simply to build a Maginot Line to repel foreigners.
What would a Topping immigration control look like ?
How it is now( which isn't good for poor area's)open borders to the world - what is it ?
It would look pretty much the same as it does right now. Which "poor area's" did you have in mind?
The one i live in,it looks even poorer with the poorest of the poor from the new countries of the eastern block.
May I ask what part of London you live ?
You may. It is the glorious region of Acton.
And you?
Bradford west.
And what would you change about Bradford West's immigration policy if you could? Is it pretty bad at the moment?
Don't get me wrong,I want immigration but only immigration the country needs,is that wrong ?
Yes and no. One of the things that we have agreed to in order to be a community of nations with the EU27 is that our citizens have the right to go where they want. Several studies have shown this has a certain but by no means conclusive effect on GDP and per capita GDP. But I am not hung up on immigration and I believe that many Leavers (sorry not sure if you are one) are precisely hung up on immigration regardless of the economic arguments one way or the other. It is more often than not an excuse which politicians of all stripes use to blame their failings on.
We should have had immigration controls when Blair agreed to the new Eastern EU states on joining.
Britain one of the richest countries opening the borders to the poorest countries in Europe was a great idea if you don't live in poorer area's.
The rate of EU immigration is of course falling quite dramatically now but I appreciate that it might be a consequence of the vote.
Good point plus of course putting in EU migration controls is simply to build a Maginot Line to repel foreigners.
What would a Topping immigration control look like ?
How it is now( which isn't good for poor area's)open borders to the world - what is it ?
It would look pretty much the same as it does right now. Which "poor area's" did you have in mind?
The one i live in,it looks even poorer with the poorest of the poor from the new countries of the eastern block.
May I ask what part of London you live ?
You may. It is the glorious region of Acton.
And you?
Bradford west.
And what would you change about Bradford West's immigration policy if you could? Is it pretty bad at the moment?
Don't get me wrong,I want immigration but only immigration the country needs,is that wrong ?
Yes and no. One of the things that we have agreed to in order to be a community of nations with the EU27 is that our citizens have the right to go where they want. Several studies have shown this has a certain but by no means conclusive effect on GDP and per capita GDP. But I am not hung up on immigration and I believe that many Leavers (sorry not sure if you are one) are precisely hung up on immigration regardless of the economic arguments one way or the other. It is more often than not an excuse which politicians of all stripes use to blame their failings on.
We should have had immigration controls when Blair agreed to the new Eastern EU states on joining.
Britain one of the richest countries opening the borders to the poorest countries in Europe was a great idea if you don't live in poorer area's.
The rate of EU immigration is of course falling quite dramatically now but I appreciate that it might be a consequence of the vote.
Still it won't be anywhere near the 13 thousand the labour government told us at the time.
Good point plus of course putting in EU migration controls is simply to build a Maginot Line to repel foreigners.
What would a Topping immigration control look like ?
How it is now( which isn't good for poor area's)open borders to the world - what is it ?
It would look pretty much the same as it does right now. Which "poor area's" did you have in mind?
The one i live in,it looks even poorer with the poorest of the poor from the new countries of the eastern block.
May I ask what part of London you live ?
You may. It is the glorious region of Acton.
And you?
Bradford west.
And what would you change about Bradford West's immigration policy if you could? Is it pretty bad at the moment?
Don't get me wrong,I want immigration but only immigration the country needs,is that wrong ?
Yes and no. One of the things that we have agreed to in order to be a community of nations with the EU27 is that our citizens have the right to go where they want. Several studies have shown this has a certain but by no means conclusive effect on GDP and per capita GDP. But I am not hung up on immigration and I believe that many Leavers (sorry not sure if you are one) are precisely hung up on immigration regardless of the economic arguments one way or the other. It is more often than not an excuse which politicians of all stripes use to blame their failings on.
We should have had immigration controls when Blair agreed to the new Eastern EU states on joining.
Britain one of the richest countries opening the borders to the poorest countries in Europe was a great idea if you don't live in poorer area's.
The rate of EU immigration is of course falling quite dramatically now but I appreciate that it might be a consequence of the vote.
Not all too surprising when 52% of our country's population effectively says "F off you furriners". Not really very friendly environment to settle in. The irony is that it will be the highly skilled that turn away as they have other options. The low skilled will still come regardless
Top marks to the "Politics Live" producers for trolling - cutting short the usual monotonous Brexit arguments between Nick Clegg and Gisela Stuart by rolling the end credits prematurely:
Is it me or is BBC news becoming totally unhinged over the Brexit this week?
It's actually unwatchable at the moment...
I found the way that stress testing of our banking system was presented last week bordering on the perverse. I really can’t believe that those very well paid chaps and chapesses at the BBC could be that stupid. It was wilful misrepresentation.
A lot of the British media are completely losing their minds over Brexit.
Something similar is observed in the US, where the media have lost their collective minds over Trump.
In both cases their attitude is less than helpful towards the ‘side’ they support.
After his spin BMW have issued a statement, which Mr Islam is now reporting saying the BMW have just brought forward the annual maintenance shutdown to coincide with Brexit leave day.
Is it me or is BBC news becoming totally unhinged over the Brexit this week?
It's actually unwatchable at the moment...
I found the way that stress testing of our banking system was presented last week bordering on the perverse. I really can’t believe that those very well paid chaps and chapesses at the BBC could be that stupid. It was wilful misrepresentation.
A lot of the British media are completely losing their minds over Brexit.
Something similar is observed in the US, where the media have lost their collective minds over Trump.
In both cases their attitude is less than helpful towards the ‘side’ they support.
What about the clip from Irish radio below? The problem with Brexit is that in order to deliver it you need to negotiate with people who are not on either side of your culture war.
Shocking intro on WATO to the MAC report - "The picture you paint seems to be one of an overwhelmingly positive impact of EU immigration....."
Professor Manning put her right.....
The report is strikingly short on problems caused by EU immigration. The main problem seems to have been that a lot of old British people don’t like immigrants.
Is it me or is BBC news becoming totally unhinged over the Brexit this week?
It's actually unwatchable at the moment...
I found the way that stress testing of our banking system was presented last week bordering on the perverse. I really can’t believe that those very well paid chaps and chapesses at the BBC could be that stupid. It was wilful misrepresentation.
A lot of the British media are completely losing their minds over Brexit.
Something similar is observed in the US, where the media have lost their collective minds over Trump.
In both cases their attitude is less than helpful towards the ‘side’ they support.
The mainstream media tends to be populated by people who are well educated and hold moderate views. They find populist movements that have given us Brexit, Trump and Corbyn gauche and ridiculous. They try to maintain balance, and impartiality but I understand their difficulty. Trying to be impartial about movements that are essentially advancing anti-cultural self- destructive bigotry is a big challenge.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Extremists always complain about the media. It gives them justification to close down dissent from their narrow minded viewpoints
I’ve just dipped in and out on here this but it seems to me that the MAC report has highlighted what has been obvious for a long time.we dont really need low skill immigration, at the cost of unemployed low skill U.K. nationals. Conversely, the focus of the Tories on limiting immigration has meant that high skilled immigration has suffered, and we need more of this.
Effectively there was collateral damage from a clampdown on high (and low) skilled immigration from outside the EU carried out for reasons of political expediency - that is in order to try and limit total net migration headcount and thus the political damage given that governments could do nothing about the impact on the headcount of the uncontrollable and excessive low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
Is it me or is BBC news becoming totally unhinged over the Brexit this week?
It's actually unwatchable at the moment...
I found the way that stress testing of our banking system was presented last week bordering on the perverse. I really can’t believe that those very well paid chaps and chapesses at the BBC could be that stupid. It was wilful misrepresentation.
A lot of the British media are completely losing their minds over Brexit.
Something similar is observed in the US, where the media have lost their collective minds over Trump.
In both cases their attitude is less than helpful towards the ‘side’ they support.
The mainstream media tends to be populated by people who are well educated and hold moderate views. They find populist movements that have given us Brexit, Trump and Corbyn gauche and ridiculous. They try to maintain balance, and impartiality but I understand their difficulty. Trying to be impartial about movements that are essentially advancing anti-cultural self- destructive bigotry is a big challenge.
They talk to themselves, and so fail to understand the world as it is.
I’ve just dipped in and out on here this but it seems to me that the MAC report has highlighted what has been obvious for a long time.we dont really need low skill immigration, at the cost of unemployed low skill U.K. nationals. Conversely, the focus of the Tories on limiting immigration has meant that high skilled immigration has suffered, and we need more of this.
Effectively there was collateral damage from a clampdown on high (and low) skilled immigration from outside the EU carried out for reasons of political expediency - that is in order to try and limit total net migration headcount and thus the political damage given that governments could do nothing about the impact on the headcount of the uncontrollable and excessive low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe.
The 50% of immigration that comes from outside the EU is always conveniently forgotten about by Leavers.
Shocking intro on WATO to the MAC report - "The picture you paint seems to be one of an overwhelmingly positive impact of EU immigration....."
Professor Manning put her right.....
The report is strikingly short on problems caused by EU immigration. The main problem seems to have been that a lot of old British people don’t like immigrants.
Particularly dusky Muslim immigrants that apparently look like pillar boxes.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Top marks to the "Politics Live" producers for trolling - cutting short the usual monotonous Brexit arguments between Nick Clegg and Gisela Stuart by rolling the end credits prematurely:
They should have done it two minutes into the programme.
Nick Clegg was arguing we should give preference to Bulgarian immigramnts over Canadian immigrants because Bulgaria is closer to the UK geographically.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Not a chance.
Harwich was Labour in 97 and there's evidence of a big swing away from Brexit in Essex generally so he could be a casualty in the right circumstances.
Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.
After a time earlier in the summer when it looked like the battle for congress might be tightening, it now seems the momentum is with the Dems heading for a 'Blue Wave' this November. They can easily expect to gain the house of representatives now, which brings the focus on to what happens in the Senate.
The received wisdom still seems to be that the GOP will hold the Senate, simply due to there being so many Dems up for election this year, and quite a few in Trump voting seats. I think the battle is actually much more of a 50/50 situation than that.
As it stands counting senators not up for re-election, and those favoured to win in November, you can probably put the GOP on 47 seats and the Dems on 43. Which leaves 10 competitive races; NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL, TN, TX, MT.
I think all the incumbent Dem senators in these races should be favoured to win, for the simple fact that incumbent senators don't lose races in their wave year. In fact you have to go back to 1994 to find a senate election that breaks this precedent when the Dems picked up a seat in South Dakota against the GOP wave. So i struggle to see that the fundamentals of the 2018 environment aren't going to get the Dems over the line in ND, MO, IN, WV, FL and MT. Which takes the Dems to 49.
Look at Florida where Rick Scott has spent a fortune bombarding the airwaves with ads and its only got him to level in the polls with Bill Nelson. If he had a real shot at winning he should be well ahead to counteract the headwinds coming his way as election day gets closer.
So it comes down to GOP held seats in NV, AZ, TN and TX. I'd say the Dems look strong in Nevada and Arizona based on current polling, but anything could happen. Texas is going to be an uphill struggle despite a strong candidate so I still think Cruz will be safe given it's Texas. Tennessee surprisingly looks like a toss up aswell (the latest CNN poll has the Dem up 5 points at 50-45). He's a great candidate for the Dems in a very GOP leaning state. This will come down to whether a strong candidate can overcome a state that voted heavily for trump. If you'd asked me earlier in the year I'd have said it was a slim chance, but the polls have put the Dem ahead pretty consistently so it's looking close.
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
Yes, exactly. In an ideal world, there shouldn't be preferential treatment for EU citizens over rest-of-world citizens; but, in the real world, if we want a privileged trading relationship with the EU, then naturally we're going to have to give them privileges vis-a-vis the rest of the world in return.
Not true for the EU/Canada trade deal nor the EU/Japan trade deal.
Having largely agreed with Osborne on election night that May was a dead woman walking and having got stung as a result I am inclined to go long on May at the moment. It’s not that she is any good ( she isn’t) but that there is no consensus on who would be better.
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.
A May Vs Corbyn rematch is still the most likely combination for the next election.
And Jezza with a nice majority at the end of it...
There is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories with Yougov today since 2017 which would be enough to give May a small majority
Only if the dead get out of their graves and make their way to the ballot box. Last year, the dead gave more to the Conservative Party coffers than the living members .....
Yes, exactly. In an ideal world, there shouldn't be preferential treatment for EU citizens over rest-of-world citizens; but, in the real world, if we want a privileged trading relationship with the EU, then naturally we're going to have to give them privileges vis-a-vis the rest of the world in return.
Not true for the EU/Canada trade deal nor the EU/Japan trade deal.
There's a world of difference between a single market and a trade deal.
I’ve just dipped in and out on here this but it seems to me that the MAC report has highlighted what has been obvious for a long time.we dont really need low skill immigration, at the cost of unemployed low skill U.K. nationals. Conversely, the focus of the Tories on limiting immigration has meant that high skilled immigration has suffered, and we need more of this.
Effectively there was collateral damage from a clampdown on high (and low) skilled immigration from outside the EU carried out for reasons of political expediency - that is in order to try and limit total net migration headcount and thus the political damage given that governments could do nothing about the impact on the headcount of the uncontrollable and excessive low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe.
The 50% of immigration that comes from outside the EU is always conveniently forgotten about by Leavers.
Except the EU is only 20% of the World but 50% of immigration.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Not a chance.
Harwich was Labour in 97 and there's evidence of a big swing away from Brexit in Essex generally so he could be a casualty in the right circumstances.
Essex seems like a reverse Merseyside: trending incessantly to the Right beyond what raw demographics would suggest.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Not a chance.
Harwich was Labour in 97 and there's evidence of a big swing away from Brexit in Essex generally so he could be a casualty in the right circumstances.
Where is the evidence that Essex is hostile to Brexit? Rather the reverse.
I’ve just dipped in and out on here this but it seems to me that the MAC report has highlighted what has been obvious for a long time.we dont really need low skill immigration, at the cost of unemployed low skill U.K. nationals. Conversely, the focus of the Tories on limiting immigration has meant that high skilled immigration has suffered, and we need more of this.
Effectively there was collateral damage from a clampdown on high (and low) skilled immigration from outside the EU carried out for reasons of political expediency - that is in order to try and limit total net migration headcount and thus the political damage given that governments could do nothing about the impact on the headcount of the uncontrollable and excessive low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe.
The 50% of immigration that comes from outside the EU is always conveniently forgotten about by Leavers.
Except the EU is only 20% of the World but 50% of immigration.
Because they are our effing neighbours. I'm not asking you to derive according to first principles the Gravity model of international trade but you can at least understand the logic underpinning it. And so it goes for our relationship with the EU.
I’ve just dipped in and out on here this but it seems to me that the MAC report has highlighted what has been obvious for a long time.we dont really need low skill immigration, at the cost of unemployed low skill U.K. nationals. Conversely, the focus of the Tories on limiting immigration has meant that high skilled immigration has suffered, and we need more of this.
Effectively there was collateral damage from a clampdown on high (and low) skilled immigration from outside the EU carried out for reasons of political expediency - that is in order to try and limit total net migration headcount and thus the political damage given that governments could do nothing about the impact on the headcount of the uncontrollable and excessive low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe.
The 50% of immigration that comes from outside the EU is always conveniently forgotten about by Leavers.
Except the EU is only 20% of the World but 50% of immigration.
less than a third now. Most immigration now is from Asia and Africa.
Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.
After a time earlier in the summer when it looked like the battle for congress might be tightening, it now seems the momentum is with the Dems heading for a 'Blue Wave' this November. They can easily expect to gain the house of representatives now, which brings the focus on to what happens in the Senate.
The received wisdom still seems to be that the GOP will hold the Senate, simply due to there being so many Dems up for election this year, and quite a few in Trump voting seats. I think the battle is actually much more of a 50/50 situation than that.
As it stands counting senators not up for re-election, and those favoured to win in November, you can probably put the GOP on 47 seats and the Dems on 43. Which leaves 10 competitive races; NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL, TN, TX, MT.
I think all the incumbent Dem senators in these races should be favoured to win, for the simple fact that incumbent senators don't lose races in their wave year. In fact you have to go back to 1994 to find a senate election that breaks this precedent when the Dems picked up a seat in South Dakota against the GOP wave. So i struggle to see that the fundamentals of the 2018 environment aren't going to get the Dems over the line in ND, MO, IN, WV, FL and MT. Which takes the Dems to 49.
Look at Florida where Rick Scott has spent a fortune bombarding the airwaves with ads and its only got him to level in the polls with Bill Nelson. If he had a real shot at winning he should be well ahead to counteract the headwinds coming his way as election day gets closer.
So it comes down to GOP held seats in NV, AZ, TN and TX. I'd say the Dems look strong in Nevada and Arizona based on current polling, but anything could happen. Texas is going to be an uphill struggle despite a strong candidate so I still think Cruz will be safe given it's Texas. Tennessee surprisingly looks like a toss up aswell (the latest CNN poll has the Dem up 5 points at 50-45). He's a great candidate for the Dems in a very GOP leaning state. This will come down to whether a strong candidate can overcome a state that voted heavily for trump. If you'd asked me earlier in the year I'd have said it was a slim chance, but the polls have put the Dem ahead pretty consistently so it's looking close.
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
An incumbent Senator in Florida should be doing better than level-pegging, in a good year for his party.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Not a chance.
Harwich was Labour in 97 and there's evidence of a big swing away from Brexit in Essex generally so he could be a casualty in the right circumstances.
Where is the evidence that Essex is hostile to Brexit? Rather the reverse.
I just said a swing away from Brexit. The constituency analysis of the two big YouGov polls shows that Colchester, Chelmsford and Ipswich are all now pro-Remain and the rest of the county no longer shows such big leads for Brexit.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Not a chance.
Harwich was Labour in 97 and there's evidence of a big swing away from Brexit in Essex generally so he could be a casualty in the right circumstances.
Where is the evidence that Essex is hostile to Brexit? Rather the reverse.
I just said a swing away from Brexit. The constituency analysis of the two big YouGov polls shows that Colchester, Chelmsford and Ipswich are all now pro-Remain and the rest of the county no longer shows such big leads for Brexit.
I expect there's still a big lead for Leave in Harwich, and the county generally.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Not a chance.
Harwich was Labour in 97 and there's evidence of a big swing away from Brexit in Essex generally so he could be a casualty in the right circumstances.
Where is the evidence that Essex is hostile to Brexit? Rather the reverse.
I just said a swing away from Brexit. The constituency analysis of the two big YouGov polls shows that Colchester, Chelmsford and Ipswich are all now pro-Remain and the rest of the county no longer shows such big leads for Brexit.
Having largely agreed with Osborne on election night that May was a dead woman walking and having got stung as a result I am inclined to go long on May at the moment. It’s not that she is any good ( she isn’t) but that there is no consensus on who would be better.
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.
A May Vs Corbyn rematch is still the most likely combination for the next election.
And Jezza with a nice majority at the end of it...
There is a 1% swing from Labour to the Tories with Yougov today since 2017 which would be enough to give May a small majority
*Sigh*
May had a 25% poll lead FOUR WEEKS before the 2017 general election!
SeanT will be disappointed if they send him to Burning Man to do a review...
What it's like going to Burning Man for the first time
Even the Orgy Dome, which I have envisioned as a den of sweaty carnality so iniquitous it would make the devil blush, has its own set of rules.
"The Orgy Dome is so boring," a campmate complains. "First, you have to hear this long lecture about consent. Then you have to wait in line forever. And then, once you get in, it's mostly just couples laying around. It's the most organized sex you'll ever have in your life."
"It's true," a friend volunteers. "The only good reason to go to the Orgy Dome is if you want to take a nap."
At least there's no chance of him being stuck in the middle of the "man" as the sacrificial virgin, and we can look forward to many more of his epistles for sometime to come..... On second thoughts, though...
Vince Cable ( who) about to deliver his conference speech
Watching the coverage on Sky they have only one tune, give us a peoples vote, we didnt vote for this or that, the public were mislead, etc, etc.
Not one word on how to appeal to the 52% or any relevant policies
They have become the party of local government and nothing else
Listening to Cable this morning on Today made me swerve towards ardent Brexitism. Thank goodness they followed it up with an interview with one Nigel Farage, which restored me to sane Remainerdom.
Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.
After a time earlier in the summer when it looked like the battle for congress might be tightening, it now seems the momentum is with the Dems heading for a 'Blue Wave' this November. They can easily expect to gain the house of representatives now, which brings the focus on to what happens in the Senate.
The received wisdom still seems to be that the GOP will hold the Senate, simply due to there being so many Dems up for election this year, and quite a few in Trump voting seats. I think the battle is actually much more of a 50/50 situation than that.
As it stands counting senators not up for re-election, and those favoured to win in November, you can probably put the GOP on 47 seats and the Dems on 43. Which leaves 10 competitive races; NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL, TN, TX, MT.
I think all the incumbent Dem senators in these races should be favoured to win, for the simple fact that incumbent senators don't lose races in their wave year. In fact you have to go back to 1994 to find a senate election that breaks this precedent when the Dems picked up a seat in South Dakota against the GOP wave. So i struggle to see that the fundamentals of the 2018 environment aren't going to get the Dems over the line in ND, MO, IN, WV, FL and MT. Which takes the Dems to 49.
Look at Florida where Rick Scott has spent a fortune bombarding the airwaves with ads and its only got him to level in the polls with Bill Nelson. If he had a real shot at winning he should be well ahead to counteract the headwinds coming his way as election day gets closer.
So it comes down to GOP held seats in NV, AZ, TN and TX. I'd say the Dems look strong in Nevada and Arizona based on current polling, but anything could happen. Texas is going to be an uphill struggle despite a strong candidate so I still think Cruz will be safe given it's Texas. Tennessee surprisingly looks like a toss up aswell (the latest CNN poll has the Dem up 5 points at 50-45). He's a great candidate for the Dems in a very GOP leaning state. This will come down to whether a strong candidate can overcome a state that voted heavily for trump. If you'd asked me earlier in the year I'd have said it was a slim chance, but the polls have put the Dem ahead pretty consistently so it's looking close.
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
An incumbent Senator in Florida should be doing better than level-pegging, in a good year for his party.
Scott won his two governors races by 1.2% and 1% in 2010 and 2014. Both Wave years for the GOP. The fundamentals say he isn't going to win in a Blue Wave year, altough he'll probably keep it comparatively close.
So Leavers have reached the point of complaining about the media. The idea that it may be their cherished prejudices rather than the reporting being the problem evidently hasn’t occurred to them.
Did you hear Bernard Jenkin yesterday? "I never actually wanted to leave the EU. It was David Cameron who insisted on the in/out referendum."
I will take great pleasure in voting against that twerp on every occasion I have the opportunity.
If he loses his seat I’m classing it as a Tory gain.
Not a chance.
Harwich was Labour in 97 and there's evidence of a big swing away from Brexit in Essex generally so he could be a casualty in the right circumstances.
Where is the evidence that Essex is hostile to Brexit? Rather the reverse.
I just said a swing away from Brexit. The constituency analysis of the two big YouGov polls shows that Colchester, Chelmsford and Ipswich are all now pro-Remain and the rest of the county no longer shows such big leads for Brexit.
Vince Cable ( who) about to deliver his conference speech
Watching the coverage on Sky they have only one tune, give us a peoples vote, we didnt vote for this or that, the public were mislead, etc, etc.
Not one word on how to appeal to the 52% or any relevant policies
They have become the party of local government and nothing else
Listening to Cable this morning on Today made me swerve towards ardent Brexitism. Thank goodness they followed it up with an interview with one Nigel Farage, which restored me to sane Remainerdom.
Top marks to the "Politics Live" producers for trolling - cutting short the usual monotonous Brexit arguments between Nick Clegg and Gisela Stuart by rolling the end credits prematurely:
They should have done it two minutes into the programme.
Nick Clegg was arguing we should give preference to Bulgarian immigramnts over Canadian immigrants because Bulgaria is closer to the UK geographically.
So is Chad. Not a great argument from the Cleggster, there.
[To preempt any suggestions that this country was picked on the basis of colour: "Transparency International has ranked Chad as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. In 2007, it scored 1.8 out of 10 on the Corruption Perceptions Index (with 10 being the least corrupt). Only Tonga, Uzbekistan, Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar, and Somalia scored lower."]
Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.
After a time earlier in the summer when it looked like the battle for congress might be tightening, it now seems the momentum is with the Dems heading for a 'Blue Wave' this November. They can easily expect to gain the house of representatives now, which brings the focus on to what happens in the Senate.
The received wisdom still seems to be that the GOP will hold the Senate, simply due to there being so many Dems up for election this year, and quite a few in Trump voting seats. I think the battle is actually much more of a 50/50 situation than that.
As it stands counting senators not up for re-election, and those favoured to win in November, you can probably put the GOP on 47 seats and the Dems on 43. Which leaves 10 competitive races; NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL, TN, TX, MT.
get the Dems over the line in ND, MO, IN, WV, FL and MT. Which takes the Dems to 49.
Look at Florida where Rick Scott has spent a fortune bombarding the airwaves with ads and its only got him to level in the polls with Bill Nelson. If he had a real shot at winning he should be well ahead to counteract the headwinds coming his way as election day gets closer.
So it comes down to GOP held seats in NV, AZ, TN and TX. I'd say the Dems look strong in Nevada and Arizona based on current polling, but anything could happen. Texas is going to be an uphill struggle despite a strong candidate so I still think Cruz will be safe given it's Texas. Tennessee surprisingly looks like a toss up aswell (the latest CNN poll has the Dem up 5 points at 50-45). He's a great candidate for the Dems in a very GOP leaning state. This will come down to whether a strong candidate can overcome a state that voted heavily for trump. If you'd asked me earlier in the year I'd have said it was a slim chance, but the polls have put the Dem ahead pretty consistently so it's looking close.
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
An incumbent Senator in Florida should be doing better than level-pegging, in a good year for his party.
Scott won his two governors races by 1.2% and 1% in 2010 and 2014. Both Wave years for the GOP. The fundamentals say he isn't going to win in a Blue Wave year, altough he'll probably keep it comparatively close.
Also, Trump's ratings have held up a lot better in Florida than they have nationally.
Nice one. Good to see a sensible person representing us abroad. He will go down well in Japan; polite and pretty humble for a politician (no gags about "much to be humble about" please, it has been done before!)
What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best: “It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power. https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats
Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.
[...]
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
Looks to me that the Ds are set to pick up AZ, NV and TN of those three, and TX (Texas!) is looking a lot more likely a D pickup than it should. Against that FL, IN, and ND are looking iffy, although I think the Ds will retain FL on balance. All in all I think the best the GOP can hope for is maintaining the current 51/49 balance in their favour, and a 50/50 split is probably the most likely outcome (Ds pick up AZ, NV and TN but fail to retain IN and ND). Mike Pence will be busy.
What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best: “It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power. https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats
Yet, strangely enough, the one time the Lib Dems were in government now seems like a halcyon period.
Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.
[...]
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
Looks to me that the Ds are set to pick up AZ, NV and TN of those three, and TX (Texas!) is looking a lot more likely a D pickup than it should. Against that FL, IN, and ND are looking iffy, although I think the Ds will retain FL on balance. All in all I think the best the GOP can hope for is maintaining the current 51/49 balance in their favour, and a 50/50 split is probably the most likely outcome (Ds pick up AZ, NV and TN but fail to retain IN and ND). Mike Pence will be busy.
My own view is that the Republicans will hold TN, given how Red it is.
What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best: “It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power. https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats
Yet, strangely enough, the one time the Lib Dems were in government now seems like a halcyon period.
Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.
After a time earlier in the summer when it looked like the battle for congress might be tightening, it now seems the momentum is with the Dems heading for a 'Blue Wave' this November. They can easily expect to gain the house of representatives now, which brings the focus on to what happens in the Senate.
The received wisdom still seems to be that the GOP will hold the Senate, simply due to there being so many Dems up for election this year, and quite a few in Trump voting seats. I think the battle is actually much more of a 50/50 situation than that.
As it stands counting senators not up for re-election, and those favoured to win in November, you can probably put the GOP on 47 seats and the Dems on 43. Which leaves 10 competitive races; NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL, TN, TX, MT.
get the Dems over the line in ND, MO, IN, WV, FL and MT. Which takes the Dems to 49.
Look at Florida where Rick Scott has spent a fortune bombarding the airwaves with ads and its only got him to level in the polls with Bill Nelson. If he had a real shot at winning he should be well ahead to counteract the headwinds coming his way as election day gets closer.
So it comes down to GOP held seats in NV, AZ, TN and TX. I'd say the Dems look strong in Nevada and Arizona based on current polling, but anything could happen. Texas is going to be an uphill struggle despite a strong candidate so I still think Cruz will be safe given it's Texas. Tennessee surprisingly looks like a toss up aswell (the latest CNN poll has the Dem up 5 points at 50-45). He's a great candidate for the Dems in a very GOP leaning state. This will come down to whether a strong candidate can overcome a state that voted heavily for trump. If you'd asked me earlier in the year I'd have said it was a slim chance, but the polls have put the Dem ahead pretty consistently so it's looking close.
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
An incumbent Senator in Florida should be doing better than level-pegging, in a good year for his party.
Scott won his two governors races by 1.2% and 1% in 2010 and 2014. Both Wave years for the GOP. The fundamentals say he isn't going to win in a Blue Wave year, altough he'll probably keep it comparatively close.
Also, Trump's ratings have held up a lot better in Florida than they have nationally.
The $64,000 question in FL is how many Puerto Ricans moved there after Irma, and have they registered to vote?
What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best: “It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power. https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats
Yet, strangely enough, the one time the Lib Dems were in government now seems like a halcyon period.
What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best: “It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power. https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats
Without the danger of bloodshed??? Have you seen how they all carry a sharp knife, for the plunging between the shoulder blades of their potential leadership rivals....
What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best: “It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power. https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats
Without the danger of bloodshed??? Have you seen how they all carry a sharp knife, for the plunging between the shoulder blades of their potential leadership rivals....
That was then. Cable is most renowned for carrying around a Matthew Oakeshott poll...
Comments
I do think Stephen Lloyd's pledge not to vote against should be making waves though - if even the Lib Dems aren't voting against in full there could be a lot of abstentions from Labour?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45558588
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1042023232256266240
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1042025107395362816
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1042028775863664641
Lewis, definitely fewer than 90 days if he wants to avoid a large invoice from HMRC.
Professor Manning put her right.....
Britain one of the richest countries opening the borders to the poorest countries in Europe was a great idea if you don't live in poorer area's.
'That might be more of a problem'.
Glad to see it's all been thought through!
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1042023301520883713
Something similar is observed in the US, where the media have lost their collective minds over Trump.
In both cases their attitude is less than helpful towards the ‘side’ they support.
A very sensible decision.
Edit I see his last tweet makes the point.
Nick Clegg was arguing we should give preference to Bulgarian immigramnts over Canadian immigrants because Bulgaria is closer to the UK geographically.
After a time earlier in the summer when it looked like the battle for congress might be tightening, it now seems the momentum is with the Dems heading for a 'Blue Wave' this November. They can easily expect to gain the house of representatives now, which brings the focus on to what happens in the Senate.
The received wisdom still seems to be that the GOP will hold the Senate, simply due to there being so many Dems up for election this year, and quite a few in Trump voting seats. I think the battle is actually much more of a 50/50 situation than that.
As it stands counting senators not up for re-election, and those favoured to win in November, you can probably put the GOP on 47 seats and the Dems on 43. Which leaves 10 competitive races; NV, AZ, ND, MO, IN, WV, FL, TN, TX, MT.
I think all the incumbent Dem senators in these races should be favoured to win, for the simple fact that incumbent senators don't lose races in their wave year. In fact you have to go back to 1994 to find a senate election that breaks this precedent when the Dems picked up a seat in South Dakota against the GOP wave. So i struggle to see that the fundamentals of the 2018 environment aren't going to get the Dems over the line in ND, MO, IN, WV, FL and MT. Which takes the Dems to 49.
Look at Florida where Rick Scott has spent a fortune bombarding the airwaves with ads and its only got him to level in the polls with Bill Nelson. If he had a real shot at winning he should be well ahead to counteract the headwinds coming his way as election day gets closer.
So it comes down to GOP held seats in NV, AZ, TN and TX. I'd say the Dems look strong in Nevada and Arizona based on current polling, but anything could happen. Texas is going to be an uphill struggle despite a strong candidate so I still think Cruz will be safe given it's Texas. Tennessee surprisingly looks like a toss up aswell (the latest CNN poll has the Dem up 5 points at 50-45). He's a great candidate for the Dems in a very GOP leaning state. This will come down to whether a strong candidate can overcome a state that voted heavily for trump. If you'd asked me earlier in the year I'd have said it was a slim chance, but the polls have put the Dem ahead pretty consistently so it's looking close.
So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.
IIRC it was the largest net gains by the Tories in a century.
Watching the coverage on Sky they have only one tune, give us a peoples vote, we didnt vote for this or that, the public were mislead, etc, etc.
Not one word on how to appeal to the 52% or any relevant policies
They have become the party of local government and nothing else
May had a 25% poll lead FOUR WEEKS before the 2017 general election!
https://twitter.com/foreignoffice/status/1042028969657286657
[To preempt any suggestions that this country was picked on the basis of colour: "Transparency International has ranked Chad as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. In 2007, it scored 1.8 out of 10 on the Corruption Perceptions Index (with 10 being the least corrupt). Only Tonga, Uzbekistan, Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar, and Somalia scored lower."]
“It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats
Seems to be talking about replacing himself with a robot.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
I also do not understand why conference speeches are delivered in the afternoon rather than a sensible morning slot.
I am afraid Vince I can't allow your 9 letter word....
His wife is Japanese isn’t she?
No surprise to see him fluent in the lingo.
I missed a ‘turning Japanese’ gag there.