I had nothing against Ed Miliband but knew he would struggle much more than his brother to beat the Tories.
Not saying Labour would have won but Cameron wouldn’t have got his majority and there wouldn’t have been a referendum .
Ed M never sought to nullify attacks re Labour spending . The message should have been Labour had to repair the damage done to the NHS and education under the Tories.
Totally agree. He was far too defensive on that and on other things too. Ed had some great ideas but he was cramped by fear of the reactionary tabloid press.
Corbyn is much better in this regard. He does not pander to the enemy.
Unless you consider Hamas, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Maoism, Stalinism and indeed Brexit to be 'the enemy.'
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
I think that pretty well all of those qualities have an element of selfishness in them i.e. I will benefit from these actions as well. (whether financially or genetically)
True, which is why they seem a bit odd to me. Top of my list would be something a little more altruistic. I know from experience that helping people close to you is much easier than helping those who aren't. And top notch morality should come hard surely.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
It seems surprising that it's such a slow news day given what we're expecting to come from this week, can't tell if it's just the lull before the storm or everybody involved has been totally fed up of "crunch week for Brexit" type hyperbole since the end of last year.
It was one of Cameron's better jibes, particularly given the attempt to portray divisions between coalition partners as something extraordinary, but I always admired Ed M for not simply waiting his turn when he felt he was the better choice over his brother, whether or not he was right. I'd argue not doing so would be to defer to superiors (in the sense that the elder is regarded as getting first go), which 0 people felt was most important.
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
I don't think anyone said they would raise VAT in 2010 either but I'm sure they all would have done if they had won.
And no, an election result would not have been annulled on that basis.
Election campaigns which break the law are annulled, and rerun.
You are being deliberately obtuse. Not every breach results in a rerun of an election, as you well know. If you want to argue proportionality of breach vs punishment and that it is warranted in a particular instance fine, but do not insult people by pretending by implication that every transgression results in a rerun.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
It seems surprising that it's such a slow news day given what we're expecting to come from this week, can't tell if it's just the lull before the storm or everybody involved has been totally fed up of "crunch week for Brexit" type hyperbole since the end of last year.
It's just like the good old days of Brownstuff, when we all got bewildered with the 'PM suffers worst day in office ever in history since King John signed Magna Carta' - practically twice a week.
The explanation for 2015 is much more straightforward - People decided they wanted stability with Cameron and the Tories NOT chaos with Miliband and Labour...
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
Eye of the storm......
Political weather about to produce hurricane force winds this week.
Or perhaps there will be another dozen votes on Brexit whose net effect is stalemate, after which Theresa May will keep the television cameras waiting half an hour for an important announcement announcing nothing important, much like every other week this year.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
It seems surprising that it's such a slow news day given what we're expecting to come from this week, can't tell if it's just the lull before the storm or everybody involved has been totally fed up of "crunch week for Brexit" type hyperbole since the end of last year.
I worry about the lack of anxiety frankly (or anxious about the lack of worry). It's probably mostly people being fed up, as you say, but also because everyone knows the MV is going to be lost again, and my worry is everyone has mentally prepared for both that and a further extension, which is why it is not really felt to be a crunch week, because we'll just be back replying the same issues in a few weeks and months.
I had nothing against Ed Miliband but knew he would struggle much more than his brother to beat the Tories.
Not saying Labour would have won but Cameron wouldn’t have got his majority and there wouldn’t have been a referendum .
Ed M never sought to nullify attacks re Labour spending . The message should have been Labour had to repair the damage done to the NHS and education under the Tories.
Strange how Labour can't give their staff a decent payrise - because , you know it would threaten their financial stability.
They always seem so unconcerned about doing the same to the country.
Sure, but Labour staff are going to vote Labour regardless so it is not as important to make or keep promises to them.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
Eye of the storm......
Political weather about to produce hurricane force winds this week.
Or perhaps there will be another dozen votes on Brexit whose net effect is stalemate, after which Theresa May will keep the television cameras waiting half an hour for an important announcement announcing nothing important, much like every other week this year.
It's been a while since a 'nothing has changed' lectern moment, I miss it.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
Labour's 1997 manifesto said explicitly it would end the assisted places scheme but not close the schools, which is pretty much what happened.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
Labour's 1997 manifesto said explicitly it would end the assisted places scheme but not close the schools.
I'm talking about the opted out schools, not the assisted places scheme. Labour's manifesto promised 'LEAs will be represented on governing bodies (of GM schools) but will not control them.’ Then three months later, they were abolished with minimal consultation.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
It seems surprising that it's such a slow news day given what we're expecting to come from this week, can't tell if it's just the lull before the storm or everybody involved has been totally fed up of "crunch week for Brexit" type hyperbole since the end of last year.
I worry about the lack of anxiety frankly (or anxious about the lack of worry). It's probably mostly people being fed up, as you say, but also because everyone knows the MV is going to be lost again, and my worry is everyone has mentally prepared for both that and a further extension, which is why it is not really felt to be a crunch week, because we'll just be back replying the same issues in a few weeks and months.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker, so there's little doubt we'll have an extension.
It's a very dangerous argument to use to suggest the result isn't acceptable.
An election result would have been annulled.
The only "argument" is precedent, and the rule of law.
I know Brexiteers don't like that...
It is very unusual for an election result to be overturned. Usually, it would require postal vote fraud, or impersonation, or publishing a false statement about an opponent. An overspend would not usually be enough.
It's a very dangerous argument to use to suggest the result isn't acceptable.
An election result would have been annulled.
The only "argument" is precedent, and the rule of law.
I know Brexiteers don't like that...
It is very unusual for an election result to be overturned. Usually, it would require postal vote fraud, or impersonation, or publishing a false statement about an opponent. An overspend would not usually be enough.
If it was then Mr Farage would have had a re-run in 2015 wouldn't he?
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
Other is just binning it straight away surely, unless they mean "smear it on a loved one".
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
It seems surprising that it's such a slow news day given what we're expecting to come from this week, can't tell if it's just the lull before the storm or everybody involved has been totally fed up of "crunch week for Brexit" type hyperbole since the end of last year.
I worry about the lack of anxiety frankly (or anxious about the lack of worry). It's probably mostly people being fed up, as you say, but also because everyone knows the MV is going to be lost again, and my worry is everyone has mentally prepared for both that and a further extension, which is why it is not really felt to be a crunch week, because we'll just be back replying the same issues in a few weeks and months.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker, so there's little doubt we'll have an extension.
Someone else might kick it for her, this time at least, in a change to the norm.
It's a very dangerous argument to use to suggest the result isn't acceptable.
An election result would have been annulled.
The only "argument" is precedent, and the rule of law.
I know Brexiteers don't like that...
It is very unusual for an election result to be overturned. Usually, it would require postal vote fraud, or impersonation, or publishing a false statement about an opponent. An overspend would not usually be enough.
If it was then Mr Farage would have had a re-run in 2015 wouldn't he?
Only if Craig McKinlay had been disqualified from the House of Commons or sentenced to a year in prison, as there had been another election in the interim.
The conviction of the constituency worker wouldn't therefore have counted.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
Other is just binning it straight away surely, unless they mean "smear it on a loved one".
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
Other is just binning it straight away surely, unless they mean "smear it on a loved one".
Too much information!
I'm just trying to place myself in the mind of the average Yougov yogurt-eater :-D
Makes sense. The 'real Brexit' whingers cannot complain that hard if the Commons comes up with something else if they insist they are not happy with what has been offered. After all, they will be seeking their own proper Brexits, so its the same principle.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
It seems surprising that it's such a slow news day given what we're expecting to come from this week, can't tell if it's just the lull before the storm or everybody involved has been totally fed up of "crunch week for Brexit" type hyperbole since the end of last year.
I worry about the lack of anxiety frankly (or anxious about the lack of worry). It's probably mostly people being fed up, as you say, but also because everyone knows the MV is going to be lost again, and my worry is everyone has mentally prepared for both that and a further extension, which is why it is not really felt to be a crunch week, because we'll just be back replying the same issues in a few weeks and months.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker, so there's little doubt we'll have an extension.
Indeed, although this time it's not her wanting to kick the can it's parliament. They're the ones desperate not to no deal or deal but also desperate not to say what they do want/
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
I always wonder about polls which suggest that 50% of GSCE students think Churchill was a Nazi or Victoria was the life and soul of a party or whatever and which are used to indicate the ignorance of the youth of today. I know the answers that I’d have given.
Makes sense. The 'real Brexit' whingers cannot complain that hard if the Commons comes up with something else if they insist they are not happy with what has been offered. After all, they will be seeking their own proper Brexits, so its the same principle.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
It seems surprising that it's such a slow news day given what we're expecting to come from this week, can't tell if it's just the lull before the storm or everybody involved has been totally fed up of "crunch week for Brexit" type hyperbole since the end of last year.
I worry about the lack of anxiety frankly (or anxious about the lack of worry). It's probably mostly people being fed up, as you say, but also because everyone knows the MV is going to be lost again, and my worry is everyone has mentally prepared for both that and a further extension, which is why it is not really felt to be a crunch week, because we'll just be back replying the same issues in a few weeks and months.
Theresa May is a world championship can kicker, so there's little doubt we'll have an extension.
Indeed, although this time it's not her wanting to kick the can it's parliament. They're the ones desperate not to no deal or deal but also desperate not to say what they do want/
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
Labour's 1997 manifesto said explicitly it would end the assisted places scheme but not close the schools.
I'm talking about the opted out schools, not the assisted places scheme. Labour's manifesto promised 'LEAs will be represented on governing bodies (of GM schools) but will not control them.’ Then three months later, they were abolished with minimal consultation.
And then reintroduced them about six years later with Academies. In fact a lot of the later labour years were spent undoing the changes they made at the beginning.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
I always wonder about polls which suggest that 50% of GSCE students think Churchill was a Nazi or Victoria was the life and soul of a party or whatever and which are used to indicate the ignorance of the youth of today. I know the answers that I’d have given.
I remember being given a questionairre about drug and alcohol use as a Medical Student. There was rather a lot of concern afterwards at how prevalent heroin, speed and acid use were...
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
Labour's 1997 manifesto said explicitly it would end the assisted places scheme but not close the schools.
I'm talking about the opted out schools, not the assisted places scheme. Labour's manifesto promised 'LEAs will be represented on governing bodies (of GM schools) but will not control them.’ Then three months later, they were abolished with minimal consultation.
And then reintroduced them about six years later with Academies. In fact a lot of the later labour years were spent undoing the changes they made at the beginning.
The internal market in the NHS was the other classic.
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
Labour's 1997 manifesto said explicitly it would end the assisted places scheme but not close the schools.
I'm talking about the opted out schools, not the assisted places scheme. Labour's manifesto promised 'LEAs will be represented on governing bodies (of GM schools) but will not control them.’ Then three months later, they were abolished with minimal consultation.
And then reintroduced them about six years later with Academies. In fact a lot of the later labour years were spent undoing the changes they made at the beginning.
The internal market in the NHS was the other classic.
That was why I left the Labour Party. That and Iraq. I exited to the Left.
That was why I left the Labour Party. That and Iraq. I exited to the Left.
But they did say in 1997 they would get rid of it, and they did. I don't think they promised not to bring it back in 2001, so we can't have that as a broken promise.
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
Labour's 1997 manifesto said explicitly it would end the assisted places scheme but not close the schools.
I'm talking about the opted out schools, not the assisted places scheme. Labour's manifesto promised 'LEAs will be represented on governing bodies (of GM schools) but will not control them.’ Then three months later, they were abolished with minimal consultation.
And then reintroduced them about six years later with Academies. In fact a lot of the later labour years were spent undoing the changes they made at the beginning.
The internal market in the NHS was the other classic.
That was why I left the Labour Party. That and Iraq. I exited to the Left.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
I recently read a paper that found that offering $1 to survey participants for each correct answer significantly reduced partisan bias in questions such as "is inflation higher than X years ago" (i.e. since the current government took office). Implying that partisans deliberately exaggerate on surveys.
What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.
As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.
I think there were a number of factors working against Labour in 2015. It's very hard for parties to win back power from Opposition after a long period of power. The Conservatives managed it in 1970 but, that period excepting, we have become used to one party enjoying an extended period in power before having to endure an extended period in opposition.
As others have said, through a combination of their own stupidity and naivety and some superb campaigning by the Conservatives, the LDs were destroyed and Labour took some of the pickings too but the SNP emerged as the completely dominant force and indeed a third Parliamentary force close to where the LDs had been in 2010.
The collapse of the LDs across Britain and of Labour in Scotland disproportionately favoured the Conservatives who feasted on the LD carcass in England and Wales but had nothing to lose to the SNP in Scotland. Those English gains pushed Cameron over the majority line.
Oddly enough, I think Ed M was inconsequential in what actually happened - the SNP provided a useful foil but I have always thought (and still do) they would have done a deal with the Conservatives had they been in the same position as Clegg's LDs were in 2010.
Never a chance of that ever happening. They have a purpose , the Lib Dems were greedy grasping unprincipled chancers.
What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.
As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.
I think there were a number of factors working against Labour in 2015. It's very hard for parties to win back power from Opposition after a long period of power. The Conservatives managed it in 1970 but, that period excepting, we have become used to one party enjoying an extended period in power before having to endure an extended period in opposition.
As others have said, through a combination of their own stupidity and naivety and some superb campaigning by the Conservatives, the LDs were destroyed and Labour took some of the pickings too but the SNP emerged as the completely dominant force and indeed a third Parliamentary force close to where the LDs had been in 2010.
The collapse of the LDs across Britain and of Labour in Scotland disproportionately favoured the Conservatives who feasted on the LD carcass in England and Wales but had nothing to lose to the SNP in Scotland. Those English gains pushed Cameron over the majority line.
Oddly enough, I think Ed M was inconsequential in what actually happened - the SNP provided a useful foil but I have always thought (and still do) they would have done a deal with the Conservatives had they been in the same position as Clegg's LDs were in 2010.
Never a chance of that ever happening. They have a purpose , the Lib Dems were greedy grasping unprincipled chancers.
There were clearly breaches of election law by leave but I’d be interesting in seeing the detail of the corruption alleged above.
When is a breach of election law not corrupt?
Corruption is generally taken to involve bribery. If you want to take the view that it’s just a synonym for dishonesty, feel free but that’s a pretty wide view. For example, I’d suggest that the Labour Party 2017 manifesto was dishonest. Was it corrupt though? Corrupting of the electorate perhaps, but it’s an argument that would rightly get little traction.
The only manifesto and associated campaign I'd call dishonest is the Conservative one in 1979 when the Conservatives denied they planned to double VAT (technically it was not quite doubled from 8 to 15 per cent in the budget immediately following the election). There are other campaigns that were robust to the point of being dirty but that is not quite the same thing.
There are lots of manifestos we all disagree with but I'd not call them dishonest.
Labour saying they wouldn't abolish GM schools in 1997 or introduce top up fees in 2001?
Labour's 1997 manifesto said explicitly it would end the assisted places scheme but not close the schools.
I'm talking about the opted out schools, not the assisted places scheme. Labour's manifesto promised 'LEAs will be represented on governing bodies (of GM schools) but will not control them.’ Then three months later, they were abolished with minimal consultation.
And then reintroduced them about six years later with Academies. In fact a lot of the later labour years were spent undoing the changes they made at the beginning.
The internal market in the NHS was the other classic.
Weren't tuition fees another example? In the 2001 manifesto they said something like they weren't going to introduce them, and would legislate against them - only to introduce legislation for tuition fees a couple of years later?
It makes their fury over tuition fees in 2010 appear rather (ahem) two-faced ...
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
I always wonder about polls which suggest that 50% of GSCE students think Churchill was a Nazi or Victoria was the life and soul of a party or whatever and which are used to indicate the ignorance of the youth of today. I know the answers that I’d have given.
I remember being given a questionairre about drug and alcohol use as a Medical Student. There was rather a lot of concern afterwards at how prevalent heroin, speed and acid use were...
When I was a student, in the late 1970s, the medics' drinking was legendary, though other drugs were much less available in those days.
What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.
As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.
I think there were a number of factors working against Labour in 2015. It's very hard for parties to win back power from Opposition after a long period of power. The Conservatives managed it in 1970 but, that period excepting, we have become used to one party enjoying an extended period in power before having to endure an extended period in opposition.
As others have said, through a combination of their own stupidity and naivety and some superb campaigning by the Conservatives, the LDs were destroyed and Labour took some of the pickings too but the SNP emerged as the completely dominant force and indeed a third Parliamentary force close to where the LDs had been in 2010.
The collapse of the LDs across Britain and of Labour in Scotland disproportionately favoured the Conservatives who feasted on the LD carcass in England and Wales but had nothing to lose to the SNP in Scotland. Those English gains pushed Cameron over the majority line.
Oddly enough, I think Ed M was inconsequential in what actually happened - the SNP provided a useful foil but I have always thought (and still do) they would have done a deal with the Conservatives had they been in the same position as Clegg's LDs were in 2010.
Never a chance of that ever happening. They have a purpose , the Lib Dems were greedy grasping unprincipled chancers.
We're??
True it should have been were and still would be if they were not almost extinct.
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
If it works for business and gets us out noone will care other than AC Grayling, Nigel Farage, Lord Adonis and Chris Chope.
I just want to point out that if the UK's plans fall down because some configuration of the European Council reject it, or the European Parliament rejects it, and some gobby Leaver on the whiny bus rocks up and posts something along the lines of "EU are bullies, waah!", then this post will serve as reminder that FUCKING AROUND THIS CLOSE TO THE DEADLINE IS OBVIOUSLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND MAY CAUSE A CRASHOUT. I suspect I will link back to this post frequently.
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Is that really the dividing line between anti semitic and not anti semitic?!
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Is that really the dividing line between anti semitic and not anti semitic?!
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
If it works for business and gets us out noone will care other than AC Grayling, Nigel Farage, Lord Adonis and Chris Chope.
I think so. It's why I think it's the most likely outcome. No-one wants to make trade offs.
Not going to be a fun place for anyone who has any kind of ambition for the UK however.
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
Do you think we will overturn the Leave decision?
It's all very well my saying we're heading for the Vassal State when, frankly, the best things that be said for it is that it avoids decisions and is better than any other Leave option. But actually, membership of the EU gives us what we really want, even if we didn't realise it.
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
We stay in the EEA and do a customs deal
Common market 2.0 sounds harmless enough (like it did in the 70’s)but hides the truth that we will be a vassal state with freedom of movement , eu control over financial regulation and paying money to eu. Doesn’t sound like Brexit
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
We stay in the EEA and do a customs deal
Common market 2.0 sounds harmless enough (like it did in the 70’s)but hides the truth that we will be a vassal state with freedom of movement , eu control over financial regulation and paying money to eu. Doesn’t sound like Brexit
The UK would be leaving the political institutions of the EU so it is Brexit. Personally it’s a poor second choice after Remain but anything that keeps freedom of movement is fine by me .
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
Do you think we will overturn the Leave decision?
It's all very well my saying we're heading for the Vassal State when, frankly, the best things that be said for it is that it avoids decisions and is better than any other Leave option. But actually, membership of the EU gives us what we really want, even if we didn't realise it.
Yes I think we will - eventually - overturn the leave decision. I think we will get a long A50 extension (because the EU won't agree to a short one) and there will be either another referendum or a general election, or perhaps both, within the next couple of years.
As I understand it Common Market 2.0 means continuing membership of SM/CU with full freedom of movement and payment into the EU budget. But no representation in the political structure. Vassal status in fact. Pointless to both leavers and remainers.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
If not, should we give a huge sigh of relief?
Just wearing the star will be enough, eh?
As long as they don't wear the red and white stripes with it. That would definitely turn Corbyn against them!
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
We stay in the EEA and do a customs deal
Common market 2.0 sounds harmless enough (like it did in the 70’s)but hides the truth that we will be a vassal state with freedom of movement , eu control over financial regulation and paying money to eu. Doesn’t sound like Brexit
The UK would be leaving the political institutions of the EU so it is Brexit. Personally it’s a poor second choice after Remain but anything that keeps freedom of movement is fine by me .
Uncontrolled immigration was a main issue in the 2016 referendum . If politicians stick two fingers up at the voters who expected free movement to end it will cause irreparable damage to our democracy
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
The Remain campaign's focus was the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse if we left. There was precious little about the reasons why the EU was good, just the difficulty of leaving.
Genuinely intrigued as to whether my vote would've been different had the campaign been vaguely competent. I hesitated far more than expected in the polling booth, due to economic considerations.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
If not, should we give a huge sigh of relief?
Just wearing the star will be enough, eh?
As long as they don't wear the red and white stripes with it. That would definitely turn Corbyn against them!
And he calls me ignorant, rude and unpleasant.
Presumably the final exclamation mark is there to pave the way for the subsequent joke defence.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
I think unfortunately the campaign chiefs learned all the wrong lessons from the 2014 Nat referendum. There, they were pushing at an open door with a population that was pretty sceptical of independence. With the EU, they were trying to persuade an electorate that had always veered between the suspicious and the hostile of its merits and a different approach was needed.
And I think they also overlooked that the campaign in 2014 actually broke for Independence. It was the Unionist lead prior that saw Remain get home.
The Remain campaign's focus was the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse if we left. There was precious little about the reasons why the EU was good, just the difficulty of leaving.
Genuinely intrigued as to whether my vote would've been different had the campaign been vaguely competent. I hesitated far more than expected in the polling booth, due to economic considerations.
Edited extra bit: Horsemen*.
The BSIE leaflet did tell of some of the advantages, but it was very dry.
The biggest issues were the whopping 300k+ immigration figure (After the Tories had continually described immigration as a bad thing) and focusing on the bus figure being perhaps £200 million, and not £300 million. All very leave turf.
Definition of a 'slow news day' - a thread on Ed Miliband?
How dare you
EICIPM rules OK
Since you like these, here's another one for you: JCIAA-S
Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite
In my view, yes. An interesting question is whether he believes he is: whether it occurs because he's spent so long on trendy causes and around people with questionable views that he's unconsciously slipped into it, or whether he's aware of it and doesn't care.
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
If not, should we give a huge sigh of relief?
Just wearing the star will be enough, eh?
As long as they don't wear the red and white stripes with it. That would definitely turn Corbyn against them!
And he calls me ignorant, rude and unpleasant.
But that's because you are. No other reason.
And you also make defamatory remarks. But don't let that bother you, because helpfully (from your point of view) nobody actually cares much what you think.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
IIRC a few years back during the Coalition, the government (Hague? Foreign Office) did a sector,-by-sector analysis that said the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. The documents seem to have been forgotten about during the referendum campaign.
If the Boles' initiative comes off I have a feeling that in a year's time remainers will look back on it and regret they didn't hold out for full revocation. Is there a market in backing his outcome yet?
"Common Market 2.0" formalises Limbo and makes it permanent. We are unable to make the necessary trade offs, so let's take no decisions at all, ever, and wait passively to be told what to do.
Nobody knows what Common Market 2.0 means. It is merely an attractive-sounding slogan. When the detail becomes clear it is no more likely to pass than May's deal IMO.
We stay in the EEA and do a customs deal
Common market 2.0 sounds harmless enough (like it did in the 70’s)but hides the truth that we will be a vassal state with freedom of movement , eu control over financial regulation and paying money to eu. Doesn’t sound like Brexit
The UK would be leaving the political institutions of the EU so it is Brexit. Personally it’s a poor second choice after Remain but anything that keeps freedom of movement is fine by me .
It will not get through Parliament for the very reason you cite - it is a poor second choice, for both leavers and remainers.
Slow news day: YouGov had a survey recently on whether people lick the top of yogurt pots or scrape it off with a spoon. I don't want to meet the ones who said "Other" and the ones who said "Don't know".
There is always a certain %ge of people who will 'take the micky' with opinion polls that they think are fatuous or time-wasting.
I always wonder about polls which suggest that 50% of GSCE students think Churchill was a Nazi or Victoria was the life and soul of a party or whatever and which are used to indicate the ignorance of the youth of today. I know the answers that I’d have given.
I remember being given a questionairre about drug and alcohol use as a Medical Student. There was rather a lot of concern afterwards at how prevalent heroin, speed and acid use were...
When I was a student, in the late 1970s, the medics' drinking was legendary, though other drugs were much less available in those days.
Same at my Med School, some very serious and occasionally pathological drinking, but no drugs.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
Iirc, a few years back during the Coalition, the government (Hague? Foreign Office) did a sector,-by-sector analysis that said the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. The documents seem to have been forgotten about during the referendum campaign.
Is that what turned Hague and Hammond from Eurosceptics to hardcore Remainers? I have wondered a lot about their change of heart.
Uncontrolled immigration was a main issue in the 2016 referendum . If politicians stick two fingers up at the voters who expected free movement to end it will cause irreparable damage to our democracy
It will cause the rise of unsavoury parties who will promise to deliver on it.
No Deal has 44% support according to the Telegraph.
DO YOU AGREE... If the EU refuses to make any more concessions, the UK should leave without a deal?
Do YOU agree ... this is a massively leading question? And that, for example ...
DO YOU AGREE... If the UK government refuses to come up with a way to limit economic damage, it should avoid No Deal? ...
... would generate a very different result?
Have you ever seen the Yes Prime Minister skit on polling where Bernard answers the same question in opposite ways within thirty seconds? A fine piece of satire. Especially good because it's true.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Because they did, and leavers just screamed and shouted that it was all LIES! ?
They didn't though. Most of the Remain campaign was negative. References to the benefits of the EU were lukewarm at best. The Remain case seemed to be better the devil we know.
Iirc, a few years back during the Coalition, the government (Hague? Foreign Office) did a sector,-by-sector analysis that said the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. The documents seem to have been forgotten about during the referendum campaign.
Is that what turned Hague and Hammond from Eurosceptics to hardcore Remainers? I have wondered a lot about their change of heart.
Possibly. I'm trying to recall it. It was in the first half of the Coalition, when the emphasis was on setting up things like the European Union Act (that prevented another treaty being signed without a referendum). It seems so very long ago...
In what way do you think he is anti-semitic? Presumably you don't think he will be carting them off to gas chambers.
Well, that's an absurd way of putting it, but as it's an important question, I'll try to give an answer. Apologies for the length.
Firstly, there is no one smoking gun. He hasn't been seen in Jackboots marching down Whitehall or calling for all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David.
So putting that to one side: for ages I was calling him a 'passive anti-Semite'. Someone who genuinely believed he was anti-racist, but who had spent so long understandably angry about the Palestinian cause that he had lost sight of what that meant. But one event (and annoyingly I forget which) pushed me over to him being a knowing, active anti-Semite.
A big pointer is *that* mural. I'm not Jewish, and not particularly bothered about Jewish affairs. But that mural screamed dodginess. If someone who claims to be anti-racist to his core didn't think: "Hang on, might that not be a little anti-Semitic; perhaps I should be every careful in supporting it..." evidently does not know some of the commonest anti-Semitic tropes. And if that's the case, the best that can be said is that he's in no position to judge whether his actions are anti-Semitic. He claims he didn't look at it: and if that's the case, why the f did he support something he didn't look at, and why has he not been caught out supporting (say) KKK or anti-Muslim stuff through similar blindness?
Then there is his defence of people who have made openly anti-Semitic comments, from Ken Livingstone onwards. It's fine supporting your friends and fellow travellers, but if you support them in their anti-Semitism, you're just as bad as they are. It's easy to use a form of words to support them personally, but the act.
Then there are a host of other comments and actions: from the IHRA debacle to the 'English irony' comments, or the Tunis wreath row.
Or the Chakrabarti whitewash - and if it wasn't a whitewash, then it was massive incompetence. Or the fact he (iirc) calls those nice people in Hizbollah 'friends'. Or the fact he has utterly failed to close down the issue, which should be as easy as pie to shut down - unless you actually agree with the people committing the wrongs?
I know his supporters will look at the above and say that it is thin gruel: except there's a fair but more, and the fact that when he gets into these problems it's always about Jewish people, and not about other ethnic minorities, does make it appear rather deliberate.
Finally, there is the fact that many within Labour - including MPs who have worked hard for the party for years, even decades - say he is.
The Remain campaign's focus was the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse if we left. There was precious little about the reasons why the EU was good, just the difficulty of leaving.
Genuinely intrigued as to whether my vote would've been different had the campaign been vaguely competent. I hesitated far more than expected in the polling booth, due to economic considerations.
Edited extra bit: Horsemen*.
The BSIE leaflet did tell of some of the advantages, but it was very dry.
The biggest issues were the whopping 300k+ immigration figure (After the Tories had continually described immigration as a bad thing) and focusing on the bus figure being perhaps £200 million, and not £300 million. All very leave turf.
Remain chose the date of the Referendum. It will forever be a mystery how they didn't see that the last two weeks would be dominated by those immigration figures. There should have been a big red sign on the grid that said "Whatever you do, HOLD IT BEFORE THIS DATE!!!!"
What a weird list of 'universal moral rules'. You'd have thought that at least the sixth, seventh and ninth commandments might also be worth a nod.
As for EdM, yes it is likely that his shafting of his brother counted against him, especially since he was pretty hopeless but his brother was (a little) better. Ruthlessness in politics is often a good thing, but not in this case.
I think there were a number of factors working against Labour in 2015. It's very hard for parties to win back power from Opposition after a long period of power. The Conservatives managed it in 1970 but, that period excepting, we have become used to one party enjoying an extended period in power before having to endure an extended period in opposition.
As others have said, through a combination of their own stupidity and naivety and some superb campaigning by the Conservatives, the LDs were destroyed and Labour took some of the pickings too but the SNP emerged as the completely dominant force and indeed a third Parliamentary force close to where the LDs had been in 2010.
The collapse of the LDs across Britain and of Labour in Scotland disproportionately favoured the Conservatives who feasted on the LD carcass in England and Wales but had nothing to lose to the SNP in Scotland. Those English gains pushed Cameron over the majority line.
Oddly enough, I think Ed M was inconsequential in what actually happened - the SNP provided a useful foil but I have always thought (and still do) they would have done a deal with the Conservatives had they been in the same position as Clegg's LDs were in 2010.
Never a chance of that ever happening. They have a purpose , the Lib Dems were greedy grasping unprincipled chancers.
We're??
You might find it impolite if we answered that ...
I think Common Market 2.0 would survive the voters if - and only if - there was some fig leaf regarding immigration; perhaps a return to the pre-Maastricht situation where people could work, but there were no benefits.
(In other words, while there would be a meaningful number of voters who were very unhappy, there would also be quite a lot who found it an acceptable compromise.)
I also wonder if us getting Common Market 2.0 might actually do more to loosen the EU over time that anything else. It would be an attractive outcome for a number of EU countries who are not committed to "the project". And if those countries prospered more over time...
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Oh, I agree. Mistakes were made. The most important mistake of all, in my view, is Brexit itself. The question is whether you live with the decision or try to sort out the mistake. It's not clear cut in my opinion.
Mr. 43, that would make one wonder why the Remain campaign so thoroughly failed to articulate said advantages.
Oh, I agree. Mistakes were made. The most important mistake of all, in my view, is Brexit itself. The question is whether you live with the decision or try to sort out the mistake. It's not clear cut in my opinion.
I think just about the one thing all Leavers and Remainers can agree on - apart from the utter uselessness of the current House of Commons - is that the referendum campaign was an absolute disgrace and a blight on our democracy. And that goes for both sides.
Comments
Political weather about to produce hurricane force winds this week.
Still, OK, I will put you down as an undecided.
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1104717943286480896
The conviction of the constituency worker wouldn't therefore have counted.
https://www.debate.org/opinions/in-a-poll-asking-americans-whether-theyd-ever-been-decapitated-4-of-respondents-replied-that-they-had-been-are-americans-afraid-to-admit-they-dont-know-something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jREUrbGGrgM
Implying that partisans deliberately exaggerate on surveys.
It makes their fury over tuition fees in 2010 appear rather (ahem) two-faced ...
Damned strange weather. Was sunny and bright, if cold, when I set off for the afternoon walk, during which gales and hail assaulted my perambulation.
JCIAA-S
Not going to be a fun place for anyone who has any kind of ambition for the UK however.
It's all very well my saying we're heading for the Vassal State when, frankly, the best things that be said for it is that it avoids decisions and is better than any other Leave option. But actually, membership of the EU gives us what we really want, even if we didn't realise it.
As I understand it Common Market 2.0 means continuing membership of SM/CU with full freedom of movement and payment into the EU budget. But no representation in the political structure. Vassal status in fact. Pointless to both leavers and remainers.
Just wearing the star will be enough, eh?
The Remain campaign's focus was the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse if we left. There was precious little about the reasons why the EU was good, just the difficulty of leaving.
Genuinely intrigued as to whether my vote would've been different had the campaign been vaguely competent. I hesitated far more than expected in the polling booth, due to economic considerations.
Edited extra bit: Horsemen*.
Presumably the final exclamation mark is there to pave the way for the subsequent joke defence.
And I think they also overlooked that the campaign in 2014 actually broke for Independence. It was the Unionist lead prior that saw Remain get home.
The biggest issues were the whopping 300k+ immigration figure (After the Tories had continually described immigration as a bad thing) and focusing on the bus figure being perhaps £200 million, and not £300 million. All very leave turf.
And you also make defamatory remarks. But don't let that bother you, because helpfully (from your point of view) nobody actually cares much what you think.
We were messing about, with the questionairre.
Do YOU agree ... this is a massively leading question? And that, for example ...
DO YOU AGREE... If the UK government refuses to come up with a way to limit economic damage, it should avoid No Deal? ...
... would generate a very different result?
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1104776459351179270
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1104763276997603328
Firstly, there is no one smoking gun. He hasn't been seen in Jackboots marching down Whitehall or calling for all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David.
So putting that to one side: for ages I was calling him a 'passive anti-Semite'. Someone who genuinely believed he was anti-racist, but who had spent so long understandably angry about the Palestinian cause that he had lost sight of what that meant. But one event (and annoyingly I forget which) pushed me over to him being a knowing, active anti-Semite.
A big pointer is *that* mural. I'm not Jewish, and not particularly bothered about Jewish affairs. But that mural screamed dodginess. If someone who claims to be anti-racist to his core didn't think: "Hang on, might that not be a little anti-Semitic; perhaps I should be every careful in supporting it..." evidently does not know some of the commonest anti-Semitic tropes. And if that's the case, the best that can be said is that he's in no position to judge whether his actions are anti-Semitic. He claims he didn't look at it: and if that's the case, why the f did he support something he didn't look at, and why has he not been caught out supporting (say) KKK or anti-Muslim stuff through similar blindness?
Then there is his defence of people who have made openly anti-Semitic comments, from Ken Livingstone onwards. It's fine supporting your friends and fellow travellers, but if you support them in their anti-Semitism, you're just as bad as they are. It's easy to use a form of words to support them personally, but the act.
Then there are a host of other comments and actions: from the IHRA debacle to the 'English irony' comments, or the Tunis wreath row.
Or the Chakrabarti whitewash - and if it wasn't a whitewash, then it was massive incompetence. Or the fact he (iirc) calls those nice people in Hizbollah 'friends'. Or the fact he has utterly failed to close down the issue, which should be as easy as pie to shut down - unless you actually agree with the people committing the wrongs?
I know his supporters will look at the above and say that it is thin gruel: except there's a fair but more, and the fact that when he gets into these problems it's always about Jewish people, and not about other ethnic minorities, does make it appear rather deliberate.
Finally, there is the fact that many within Labour - including MPs who have worked hard for the party for years, even decades - say he is.
(In other words, while there would be a meaningful number of voters who were very unhappy, there would also be quite a lot who found it an acceptable compromise.)
I also wonder if us getting Common Market 2.0 might actually do more to loosen the EU over time that anything else. It would be an attractive outcome for a number of EU countries who are not committed to "the project". And if those countries prospered more over time...
Drip drip drip