The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
This implies that the Conservatives were equally electable in 1992 and 1997, which I don't think is true.
Interesting point. I see what you are getting at, but on the other hand in 1992 there was the very recent memory of the poll tax, and in 1997 the economy was in a better state than in 1992. Overall, I'd say the big difference was on the opposition side.
The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
Is there even such a thing as a ‘typical Conservative voter’ ? Is there a ‘typical Labour voter’ ? Both groups are extremely broad churches of opinion and lifestyle.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
This implies that the Conservatives were equally electable in 1992 and 1997, which I don't think is true.
Interesting point. I see what you are getting at, but on the other hand in 1992 there was the very recent memory of the poll tax, and in 1997 the economy was in a better state than in 1992. Overall, I'd say the big difference was on the opposition side.
Purely anecdotal, but I knew 92 was lost to Labour on the morning of the vote, when two of my mate's wives (in different marginals and both classic swing voters) separately announced they were sticking with Tories because of the tax issue.
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
Is there even such a thing as a ‘typical Conservative voter’ ? Is there a ‘typical Labour voter’ ? Both groups are extremely broad churches of opinion and lifestyle.
Agreed. It's more a numerical observation than anything. I don't think it's credible that UKIP or an equivalent could overtake the Conservatives if they revoked Article 50.
The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.
Of course. And the reason that the incompetence and sleaze image stuck was the absolutely superb negative campaigning by Labour, and especially by Alastair Campbell. It wasn't some spontaneous public revulsion which hadn't existed in 1992.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
Not a problem with #CCU
Don’t you mean Starmer’s customs union?
They are probably still trying to explain to Jezza that the Customs Union, is not the trade union of custom officers.
Better off trying to explain to TM that keep bringing back the same thing is futile and much more productive to rename #CCU as TM's CU
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
The two points are related. The feeling amongst Labour activists that at long last, after nearly 20 years, they finally had a coherent and potentially winning offer to make to voters, was palpable. As you say, it didn't appear out of nowhere, Blair's team had systematically identified all of Labour's big weaknesses and had equally systematically addressed them.
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
The two points are related. The feeling amongst Labour activists that at long last, after nearly 20 years, they finally had a coherent and potentially winning offer to make to voters, was palpable. As you say, it didn't appear out of nowhere, Blair's team had systematically identified all of Labour's big weaknesses and had equally systematically addressed them.
Agreed. Even if Jezza's team don't agree with a single word Blair and Brown ever said, they could at least learn from the attention to detail and the sheer obsession with making it all work as best they could. Every policy was tested to near destruction against Tory potential attack lines.
I get the distinct impression that, other than John McD, Jezza's lot just think they can wing it with a few platitudes about foodbanks, school fund cuts and railway timetables.
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.
While I have to an extent given up on expecting sanity from the present HMG, I can't help thinking that this is weird. As I said in my article, less than a week ago the Conservatives were voting against the Cooper amendment which would have forced an extension, but now they're considering doing it voluntarily. Shambles, utter shambles...
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.
If you’ve done it a while, and you are canvassing with previous voting intention data you can pick up a change quite quickly. It’s not only whether they’ll support you, but whether they are motivated to make their way to the polling station.
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.
Yup. Competent.
Competence in government. I remember that. Big in the 90's, wasn't it. Like Britpop and the Rachel cut. Oh where did those days go?...
The key to understanding the 1992 election is very simple. Voters were fed up with the Conservatives, and wanted a change of government. Almost any change of government, as long as the alternative was a plausible government-in-waiting.
The key to understanding the 1997 Labour landslide is equally easy to understand. The alternative was now clearly a plausible government-in-waiting. In fact, more than that, it had put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that it was.
Yes. It is often forgotten how much effort went into the detail of preparing that campaign and manifesto. It was bomb proof.
The other factor was the sheer numbers of people out on the doorsteps knocking for Labour. A union friend once described to me the way they literally swamped whole estates in marginals with people knocking up and shoving leaflets in the days running up to the GE. It was unlike anything she had ever seen in an election.
It is possible that Jezza will pull off the latter (if his youth wing don't lose faith in the old Brexiteer!) but the former is doubtful.
The two points are related. The feeling amongst Labour activists that at long last, after nearly 20 years, they finally had a coherent and potentially winning offer to make to voters, was palpable. As you say, it didn't appear out of nowhere, Blair's team had systematically identified all of Labour's big weaknesses and had equally systematically addressed them.
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.
But that can’t be right, didn’t Corbyn with his 30 gains smashi all previous records and gains since the Second World War?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.
Yup. Competent.
Competence in government. I remember that. Big in the 90's, wasn't it. Like Britpop and the Rachel cut. Oh where did those days go?...
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...
They did it by triangulating more than Pythagoras.
Yes, but convincingly so, with a team which looked the biz, sounded very sensible, and was bright and articulate. They really did look like a serious government in waiting, and with some new ideas, but not obviously bonkers new ideas. It's almost impossible to get one's head around the idea now, but at the time even Gordon Brown sounded very much like someone to whom you could safely entrust the nation's finances.
Yup. Competent.
Competence in government. I remember that. Big in the 90's, wasn't it. Like Britpop and the Rachel cut. Oh where did those days go?...
Lost in a haze of ecstasy?
That would have been more 89-95. I was thinking more poppy and Spice Girls, with good suits and smiley teeth, not lardy Mancs in trackies
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.
If you’ve done it a while, and you are canvassing with previous voting intention data you can pick up a change quite quickly. It’s not only whether they’ll support you, but whether they are motivated to make their way to the polling station.
Were that true, canvas returns would be a reliable indicator of election outcome.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...
More seriously, Turning Point is also a highly respected charity in the UK dealing with addiction, mental health and homelessness. Not like right wing evangelicals from the US could be expected to know, care or be arsed to check. I sense a copyright conflict. Although, since they are reporting parody accounts for using their free speech rights, we may not have too much sympathy.
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...
But if it comes to a choice between revoking Brexit, or No Deal, the latter is less damaging to her party.
It really isn't
You don't understand the typical Conservative voter.
The typical Conservative voters isn't someone who would consider voting for UKIP.
I think there is actually an increasingly diminishing number of "typical" Conservative (and Labour voters), especially post Brexit. If the Tories also continue to only bang on about this, to the exclusion of everything else, they will also only be left with a hardcore minority of voters.
Also, pretty sure that no deal isn't going to be helpful in terms of swing - or more malleable - potential voters. And that is just for starters....
I was canvassing in some of the more difficult parts of a ward down in Dorset on Saturday. Strong support on the doorstep. Much better reception than the same street 3 months ago...
Normal people will say anything to get political doorknockers to leave their doorstep.
If you’ve done it a while, and you are canvassing with previous voting intention data you can pick up a change quite quickly. It’s not only whether they’ll support you, but whether they are motivated to make their way to the polling station.
Were that true, canvas returns would be a reliable indicator of election outcome.
They aren’t.
Hmm. Is this true? Certainly at local elections level seems party workers have a pretty good idea of the result by the time the count starts in most cases.
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?
I have never suggested that they would.
I expect No Deal to go with a whimper rather than a bang.
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.
But that can’t be right, didn’t Corbyn with his 30 gains smashi all previous records and gains since the Second World War?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?
Usual scaremongering. Spain depends on food exports to uk, they aren’t going to see their farmers livelihoods destroyed
Certainly widespread disruption will blunt the Corbyn will cause chaos line. But, the economy will be key. It was why the Tory vote held up in 92, but fell rapidly after Black Wednesday, and didn't really return for over 15 years. However, as you say, we don't really know how any of it will play out. Past performance may not be a good guide in truly unprecedented circumstances.
Quite and your point about Corbyn is valid.
I would contend the Conservatives pulled off a not inconsiderable feat in 1991 - in many ways, they were able to convince the electorate there had been a change in Government and the 92 election was about confirming the mandate of the new team.
The essence of the change was the huge difference in style and manner between Major and Thatcher and the empathy he had with the electorate that she had lost (especially after 87).
Who could the Conservatives have as a successor to may who would look like something as radical - only Boris fits the bill I think but his public aura has been tarnished by events. The likes of Gove and Javid don't inspire so much.
MY long shot for a future Conservative leader (perhaps the one after next) is Rishi Sunak - any thoughts?
Labour needed to gain a hell of a lot of seats in 1992 to win, it was not really possible especially against a new PM and the levels of support each party were achieving.
Michael Heseltine said in an election programme on the night of the 1987 victory that Labour had lost the next election as well. Heseltine is not a crystal ball mystic but rather in the know about how first past the post and electoral movements work in the UK.
Incumbency is key to determining the stickiness of a party in keeping seats. Sudden massive shifts in seats are very unusual, normally Labour or Tory only target 70 seats seriously in an election. Occasionally, you might see massive gains such as 1997 or 2010 but generally 70 seats gained by Labour or Tories off the other is the maximum.
I don't think Kinnock ever really believed he could win in 1992, he might have hoped it was possible but in reality he probably knew removing the Tories majority was about as good as it would get! The media and particularly the Tory press have ways to solidify support and sometimes overstating one parties ability to challenge is key to doing this.
I believe that in 1992 Kinnock could have achieved a 2017 type result - denying the Tories an overall majority - had he not lost control of himself at Sheffield a week before Polling Day. I suspect that made the difference in terms of giving the Tories a 7.6% lead rather than in the range of 6% - 6.5%. Effectively that is likely to have cost Labour 10 - 15 seats.
The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.
I might be misremembering but my recollection is that the Cones Hotline idea was pre-1992?
The Conservatives had become associated with incompetence and sleaze by 1997 and were reduced to advocating traffic cone hotlines and spam fritter contests as big ideas.
I might be misremembering but my recollection is that the Cones Hotline idea was pre-1992?
"Touching off a tour of early nominating states this week, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), told reporters he will make his decision about running in March, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer."
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
Don't tell me. This is another one of those nutjob alt-right American imports, isn't it? What are we suppose to hate this time: Muslims, transsexuals, Brussels or liberals? Somebody will have to make a list cos I can't keep up...
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Do you not think that you are succumbing to paranoia?
Is it paranoid to think that this is a fair and measured assessment of the situation? Which bits of it are wrong? And why do you feel obliged by the fact that you support some flavour of brexit (as I assume you do) to defend all forms of brexit? Did you actually hope for a no deal exit in 2016?
"No one can be entirely sure. One of the issues with a no-deal scenario is the difficulty of making accurate predictions about what will follow the stark termination of decades of trading and legal agreements, and the overnight shredding of many thousands of intricate and vital arrangements. Because there is no precedent for such an event happening to a country as advanced and complex as Britain, everyone is having to guess. Some of the hazards of a no deal might transpire to be less terrible than forecast. Unforeseen perils, for which there has been no preparation at all, would likely materialise. Documents prepared for Operation Yellowhammer, the government’s no-deal contingency planning, coyly refer to “unanticipated impacts”. This is one of the greatest hazards of no-deal Brexit: even the people paid to do so can’t identify all the risks and how menacing they might turn out to be. We are in the Rumsfeldian realm of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
So tell us leavers why are French customs officers going to let French farmers produce rot at the port? Why are Dutch customs officers going to let Dutch farmers produce rot at the port?
Seeing as you are stockpiling you have weighed all the options and decided they will.
The Customs are for goods travelling into the EU. Why would French or Dutch Customs need to check exports? Of course HMRC would have to check these on our side, and French/Dutch customs imports from the UK.
Top marks. So why are UK customs going to let food rot this side of the channel if the supermarket shelves are empty?
Usual scaremongering. Spain depends on food exports to uk, they aren’t going to see their farmers livelihoods destroyed
And why would a government implement a new trading agreement system that its business community does not want
OT the Superbowl is over. I did not watch it so dyor if you care who won.
That was perhaps the most boring sporting event I ever got up early to watch. The highlights package is going to be about three minutes long plus the half time entertainment, for an event that was four hours from start to finish.
Well done to 538’s great analysis that singer Gladys Knight would go long with the national anthem, she held that last note for several seconds to take it over two minutes.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying! Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying! Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
Another reason the Jeb comparison is notably inappropriate:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/17/the-professor-jeffrey-toobin Her energy level is just short of manic. (Once, during a campaign swing through a Dunkin’ Donuts, I offered to buy her a cup of coffee. She declined, saying, “I once had half a cup, twenty years ago, and I’m still working it off.”)...
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying! Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.
That's always been true. One of the big problems of our relationship with the EU is we don't get their ambitions for ever closer union and they can't understand why we're opposed to it.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying! Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.
That's always been true. One of the big problems of our relationship with the EU is we don't get their ambitions for ever closer union and they can't understand why we're opposed to it.
Brexit. Head in hands. Vows to do a better job of avoiding it this week.
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Do we face another week of Brexit negotiations, with Britain's good name, and reputation for honest dealing (if it has one*) dragged further through the mud? The EU's negotiating team must be fed up with pour constant shilly-shallying! Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
Bemusement and exasperation probably sum up the EU’s current attitude.
That's always been true. One of the big problems of our relationship with the EU is we don't get their ambitions for ever closer union and they can't understand why we're opposed to it.
It's just the British sense of humour. Two years reaching reaching a deal and then saying 'April Fool!'
An interesting bit of research: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/ Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
Sometimes, for all the talk of new politics, it’s old politics that comes to dominate, especially when it comes to the base of both parties in the US.
It’s very good that the UK generally takes a nonpartisan view of moral issues, and allows free votes on such things when they are legislated for. It’s far better to come to an agreed consensus on these things over time, than it is to have hyperpartisan extremists on both sides screaming past each other.
An interesting bit of research: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/ Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
Translation:
If you get shafted by the government, given the chance you'll tell them to Do One.
I'm confident that if the ERG continue to block the deal around 40/50 Tory MPs will vote to block or delay Brexit . The stakes for No Deal are too high.
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
Sometimes, for all the talk of new politics, it’s old politics that comes to dominate, especially when it comes to the base of both parties in the US.
It’s very good that the UK generally takes a nonpartisan view of moral issues, and allows free votes on such things when they are legislated for. It’s far better to come to an agreed consensus on these things over time, than it is to have hyperpartisan extremists on both sides screaming past each other.
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
You’re talking about Trump’s base. It won’t be sufficient.
An interesting bit of research: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/ Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
No, it didn't - but you can expect this to become another meme that hard line remainers will run with. Trivial and very superficial discussion from another othewise fairly well-regarded university. Mind you I was fairly revolted by their links with the New Labour project.
We start seeing cars unveiled next week, apparently there’s a few different takes on the new rules, and a few sponsorship changes should see a raft of new team colours too.
An interesting bit of research: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/ Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
Translation:
If you get shafted by the government, given the chance you'll tell them to Do One.
You'll put your foot on top of theirs and shoot through them both.
“There’s no question Warren is out front of the rest in terms of organization,” former Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “She has scored some of the prized early-state organizers, is doing the kind of campaigning one has to do in the early states, and this follows a 2018 in which she was probably more active than any other candidate in contacting and assisting voters. It’s not determinative but it’s meaningful.”
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
Funnily enough, and famous last words, I think this is the week that saw Trump win re-election in 2020. The reason is abortion. The Democrats have brought into the spotlight again with approval for late abortions in NY State and the Virginia bill on the issue,
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
You’re talking about Trump’s base. It won’t be sufficient.
No, that is the point. It won't just be Trump's base. There will be a lot of Americans who would be fundamentally anti-Trump but will think that such a stance is just a step too far. They might not vote for Trump but it will probably swing them to sitting on the fence as opposed to voting Democrat. As has been flagged before with the US elections, turnout is key.
An interesting bit of research: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/ Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
No, it didn't - but you can expect this to become another meme that hard line remainers will run with. Trivial and very superficial discussion from another othewise fairly well-regarded university. Mind you I was fairly revolted by their links with the New Labour project.
Quite. Outside of local authorities there was little to no austerity, and in welfare payments there was cpi link for the first few years, when everyone else was getting pay freezes. Even working tax credits that has been ramped up under the last government far greater than originally intended were fully maintained.
We’ve only really seen a squeeze in welfare from about 2014 onwards. Pushing down the local housing allowances, the benefit cap so a family on benefits won’t be better off than the average household income, and the ‘bedroom tax’.
The Lha changes, and the benefit cap would have disproportionately hit those areas with high house prices, which would,not have been in leave areas.
In Cumbria the areas that voted the most to leave have probably not suffered disproportionately in any measurable way due to austerity.
The link is created by the removal of a lot of top up funds given to poorer councils around the country, many of these were in fact temporary.
So it is a correlation with those areas of the country that have not done particularly well, or just not as well as other more dynamic areas. Mostly a north south thing, but that hides some of the substantial economic gains of the northern cities like Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle.
An interesting bit of research: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/ Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
Translation:
If you get shafted by the government, given the chance you'll tell them to Do One.
I'm confident that if the ERG continue to block the deal around 40/50 Tory MPs will vote to block or delay Brexit . The stakes for No Deal are too high.
If there's no deal now it will be because the EU refuse to compromise. The ERG already have.
Comments
"JOIN OUR MOVEMENT
Sick of snowflakes
spouting nonsense?
Fed up with Momentum
propaganda on your newsfeed?
Let down by the left wing bias of your university?
If you're being silenced for your conservative opinions or entrepreneurial spirit, don't sit down and shut up - click the button to find out more about Turning Point UK"
https://www.tpointuk.co.uk/
Have a pleasant nights rest
I get the distinct impression that, other than John McD, Jezza's lot just think they can wing it with a few platitudes about foodbanks, school fund cuts and railway timetables.
https://twitter.com/joemyerscough/status/1091298698502512640
They aren’t.
Not like right wing evangelicals from the US could be expected to know, care or be arsed to check.
I sense a copyright conflict.
Although, since they are reporting parody accounts for using their free speech rights, we may not have too much sympathy.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1092174819154710528
I expect No Deal to go with a whimper rather than a bang.
Just a waystation in our general decline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cones_Hotline
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/03/democratic-presidential-candidates-2020-1142895
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign-1144279
Small market so far.
Seriously the Dems will have learned nothing from 2016 if they pick her. Trump will have his Pocohontas and Liarwatha jokes all ready and lined up.
With some support from the likes of Rees-Mogg, Bernard Jenkin and Steve Baker as well I can see why the left might be worried...
https://twitter.com/bernardjenkin/status/1092015273949974528
https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1092112864343740419
https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1092044802303184901
She’d proably win anyway.
Well done to 538’s great analysis that singer Gladys Knight would go long with the national anthem, she held that last note for several seconds to take it over two minutes.
Leaving was, after all, our idea! No-one in the EU wanted us to! Although I wouldn't be surprised if they do now, we've taken up so much time.
* Why didn't the sun set on the British Empire? Because God didn't trust the British in the dark.
#InLizWeTruss
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Southeast-Asia-bucks-trend-of-sinking-global-foreign-investment
The figures for foreign direct investment into Singapore are unreal.
And the idea that we might emulate them, the sheerest fantasy.
So it's official. Tezzie is sending out search parties looking for unicorns.
Get an agreement with Labour, you Silly Goose.
What a shower.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/17/the-professor-jeffrey-toobin
Her energy level is just short of manic. (Once, during a campaign swing through a Dunkin’ Donuts, I offered to buy her a cup of coffee. She declined, saying, “I once had half a cup, twenty years ago, and I’m still working it off.”)...
I can not think of a worse issue at a worse time for the Democrats. This is going to fire up the Republican base, risks alienating working class (and others) Catholic ex-Democrats who switched to Trump in 2016 in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, is a position that most Americans oppose and is likely to dominate the Democratic presidential nomination campaign with every candidate being expected by the activist base to state their support for late-term. If they don't back it, they won't get through the Democratic selection campaign. If they do back it to appease the base, the Republicans will hammer them on the issue at every turn in 2020.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/
Did austerity cause Brexit? This paper shows that the rise of popular support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), as the single most important correlate of the subsequent Leave vote in the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum, along with broader measures of political dissatisfaction, are strongly and causally associated with an individual’s or an area’s exposure to austerity since 2010. In addition to exploiting data from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, I leverage detailed individual level panel data allowing me to exploit within-individual variation in exposure to specific welfare reforms as well as broader measures of political preferences. The results suggest that the EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms. Further, auxiliary results suggest that the welfare reforms activated existing underlying economic grievances that have broader origins than what the current literature on Brexit suggests. Up until 2010, the UK’s welfare state evened out growing income differences across the skill divide through transfer payments. This pattern markedly stops from 2010 onwards as austerity started to bite.
It’s very good that the UK generally takes a nonpartisan view of moral issues, and allows free votes on such things when they are legislated for. It’s far better to come to an agreed consensus on these things over time, than it is to have hyperpartisan extremists on both sides screaming past each other.
If you get shafted by the government, given the chance you'll tell them to Do One.
It won’t be sufficient.
Two weeks today, F1 testing commences. Huzzah!
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-02-inkjet-solar-panels-poised-revolutionise.html
Looks to be around a quarter of current costs ?
What the hell does he know about it all?
*head of Unipart
As has been flagged before with the US elections, turnout is key.
We’ve only really seen a squeeze in welfare from about 2014 onwards. Pushing down the local housing allowances, the benefit cap so a family on benefits won’t be better off than the average household income, and the ‘bedroom tax’.
The Lha changes, and the benefit cap would have disproportionately hit those areas with high house prices, which would,not have been in leave areas.
In Cumbria the areas that voted the most to leave have probably not suffered disproportionately in any measurable way due to austerity.
The link is created by the removal of a lot of top up funds given to poorer councils around the country, many of these were in fact temporary.
This is an example:
http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2009-2109/DEP2009-2109.doc
So it is a correlation with those areas of the country that have not done particularly well, or just not as well as other more dynamic areas. Mostly a north south thing, but that hides some of the substantial economic gains of the northern cities like Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle.