> @TGOHF said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them — > > Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ? > > Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
He'd probably prefer to go down in history as the chap who ended the Conservative Party than the chap who wrecked the country and I suspect that that is how he sees it.
If there is a legal shenanigans over the expulsion of Alastair Campbell and that means the rigorous enforcement of rules without fear or favour then would the quote from JC included in Mike's tweet mean that the leader himself would have to be expelled? Are there other examples lying around? We can but dream.
> Hunt falling back sharply there after his latest comments ruling out No Deal even in October if a Deal cannot be passed by then and the alternative is further extension.
>
> Now looks like Gove v Raab or Johnson
Conhome just now
Hunt 28
Johnson 24
Gove 23
Raab 20
Javid 12
Hunt has probably affected his chances (poorly) by flip flopping again, and no one really trusts Boris. Javid is competent but an empty vessel.
My thoughts are turning to Gove v. McVey or Gove v. Raab at present. It’s also possible Matt Hancock comes up the middle.
To be very blunt, there's not a huge groundswell of support in the Parliamentary party to put Philip Davies in to Number 10.
Harsh but fair on Esther but that's the way of the world.
The part of the party that you’re hearing that from aren’t the constituency she’s going for, of which Philip Davies is he himself a part.
> @Casino_Royale said: > Sort of on topic, I agree that the Conservative Party is basically finished either way. > > I see this choice as picking the most competent PM to steer the ship, and salvage what can be salvaged from the wreck. > > That turns my thoughts to the likes of Michael Gove and Matt Hancock. > > Winning the next General Election is a luxury right now.
Hancock has been pretty innocuous and invisible at Health. What convinces you that he has a chance? he is not in my book.
Hunt is pretty capable, and astute enough to abandon the fight at Health. He hasbeen good at the FCO. Top of my book, along with Gove, though I am also green on Baker and McVey, asprobably the worst suited to be PM, therefore likely to be chosen.
> @GIN1138 said: > > @isam said: > > If either make the final two, Priti or Baker could be the Tory Corbyn > > Assuming Bakers out because you can't have a backbencher becoming PM and Priti won't have any support Boris is the most "pure" followed by Raab and Mcvey.
There are many adjectives that could be used to describe Boris but "pure" is not one of them.
> @Tabman said: > > @Barnesian said: > > I'm really confused by the distinction between English, British and UKish. I'm sure foreigners are completely bewildered! I honestly don't know what my nationality is. I pause on forms when I'm asked. I search the drop down menu to see what is on top, because that is the answer they probably want. It is a farce. > > > > Basically I feel I'm English because that distinguishes me from the distinct nationalities of Scottish and Welsh, but I'm certainly not a nationalist, small-c socially conservative, economically protectionist, older non-graduate! > > > > I also feel strongly European with lots in common, certainly with Western Europe, less so with Eastern Europe. > > > > Third in line for me is British. I feel a special affinity with my neighbours, the Scots and Welsh, so let's call it British. It has no other overtones for me than that. It's not a particularly useful word. > > > > Fourth and almost undetectable is UKish. I don't feel that at all. I feel particularly close to the Irish, more so than the Scots or Welsh, but UKish is a mongrel. I would never ever describe myself as a Unionist, which I suppose is the alternative for UKish. > > What about the sporting test (much beloved of dear Norm?) > > I was born in Wales; I support England in all major supports and GB at the Olympics (and the Lions). Europe in the Ryder Cup. > > Tabman Jr qualifies for all four home nations. *******************************************************************************
I don't follow sport but I occasionally bet against England using the betting principle that the odds are probably distorted by sentiment. Otherwise I don't follow or support any sports team or individual (except Nadal).
I would take issue with Mr Smithson in that the majority of Labour Party members are actually quite glad to see the back of Campbell, while there is also a consensus building to force an election for the Deputy Leader at Conference.
As in a previous meme, it was discussed that the pressure on political parties to fill the "Centre Ground" is not only wrong, but counter productive. Members of the Tories are now demonstratedly more to the right of the leadership which is why the contenders to the throne of no 10 are now drifting to the Farage side of the argument. While in the Labour Party, the Blairittes are in danger of being swamped by the new left thinking mass membership.
Of course the argument as to why the Labour Party didn't do better in the recent EU elections. My own take is that whether by design or accident, the continuing "talks" between the Tories and Labour right up to virtually the election itself damaged both sides. Neither side could be seen to campaign effectively for their candidates, because they would be accused by the other of bad faith and wanting the "ongoing discussions" to fail. The Tories would have been seen to be utter hypocrites while Labour would have been seen to be treacherous. In the end it damaged both.
Once again the parties are behaving in a bloody stupid way. As I understand it Campbell did not say in advance he was going to vote for anyone other than Labour and so cannot be accused of undermining the Labour campaign or encouraging anyone else to do likewise. He announced it after the event on Sunday night during the BBC coverage of the results.
I don't like the man but really don't see he did anything wrong in this case.
> Sort of on topic, I agree that the Conservative Party is basically finished either way.
>
> I see this choice as picking the most competent PM to steer the ship, and salvage what can be salvaged from the wreck.
>
> That turns my thoughts to the likes of Michael Gove and Matt Hancock.
>
> Winning the next General Election is a luxury right now.
Hancock has been pretty innocuous and invisible at Health. What convinces you that he has a chance? he is not in my book.
Hunt is pretty capable, and astute enough to abandon the fight at Health. He hasbeen good at the FCO. Top of my book, along with Gove, though I am also green on Baker and McVey, asprobably the worst suited to be PM, therefore likely to be chosen.
Naturally, we must be careful of talking our books.
Hancock has been fluent, rational and balanced in his interviews so far and broad-minded in expanding the Tories appeal. He also has experience of writing manifestos and is young and fresh enough to look like a reboot. If he makes it to the final four then he might make to the ballot and it’s not inconceivable he could win up against Hunt, Javid or even Boris as a future election winner.
Full disclosure: I got £10 on Hancock at 130/1 last year.
> @John_McLean said: > I would take issue with Mr Smithson in that the majority of Labour Party members are actually quite glad to see the back of Campbell, while there is also a consensus building to force an election for the Deputy Leader at Conference. > > As in a previous meme, it was discussed that the pressure on political parties to fill the "Centre Ground" is not only wrong, but counter productive. Members of the Tories are now demonstratedly more to the right of the leadership which is why the contenders to the throne of no 10 are now drifting to the Farage side of the argument. While in the Labour Party, the Blairittes are in danger of being swamped by the new left thinking mass membership. > > Of course the argument as to why the Labour Party didn't do better in the recent EU elections. My own take is that whether by design or accident, the continuing "talks" between the Tories and Labour right up to virtually the election itself damaged both sides. Neither side could be seen to campaign effectively for their candidates, because they would be accused by the other of bad faith and wanting the "ongoing discussions" to fail. The Tories would have been seen to be utter hypocrites while Labour would have been seen to be treacherous. In the end it damaged both.
The reason is simple. It was a single issue election, on this issue Labour has a centrist position, centrism is electoral poison
> @NorthofStoke said: > If there is a legal shenanigans over the expulsion of Alastair Campbell and that means the rigorous enforcement of rules without fear or favour then would the quote from JC included in Mike's tweet mean that the leader himself would have to be expelled? Are there other examples lying around? We can but dream.
Same with the anti-semitism - how can you tackle something which begins with the one in charge.
> @viewcode said: > If either make the final two, Priti or Baker could be the Tory Corbyn > > > For all those of us who are terrible at faces, who are those people?
From the top: Baker, Patel, Boris, Raab/McVey, ?, Cleverly/Gove, Leadsom, Hunt/?, Javid/Stewart
> @RobD said: > > @viewcode said: > > If either make the final two, Priti or Baker could be the Tory Corbyn > > > > > > For all those of us who are terrible at faces, who are those people? > > From the top: > Baker, Patel, Boris, Raab/McVey, ?, Cleverly/Gove, Leadsom, Hunt/?, Javid/Stewart
On the sub-topic of the voting system for a second referendum. Assuming three options I'd like to suggest the following approach.
A voter has up to two votes. They can choose either a single option or two as first and second preferences. If an option gets above 50% from single or first preference votes then it wins. If not then all second preferences are then added to the first preferences and the winner is the option with the highest total. The approach ensures that in the event that an option does not not command a majority then the option that most can live with will pass. It overcomes the STV problem where the compromise option will fall at the first hurdle in a polarised atmosphere.
I make no claims to originality, I can't remember seeing this proposed elsewhere but it might have been unconsciously absorbed..
European planemaker Airbus wants to stay in the UK whatever the outcome of Brexit, as the country is “a very important pillar” for the company, new CEO Guillaume Faury said on Tuesday (21 May), amending negative comments made by his predecessor.
I would take issue with Mr Smithson in that the majority of Labour Party members are actually quite glad to see the back of Campbell, while there is also a consensus building to force an election for the Deputy Leader at Conference.
As in a previous meme, it was discussed that the pressure on political parties to fill the "Centre Ground" is not only wrong, but counter productive. Members of the Tories are now demonstratedly more to the right of the leadership which is why the contenders to the throne of no 10 are now drifting to the Farage side of the argument. While in the Labour Party, the Blairittes are in danger of being swamped by the new left thinking mass membership.
Of course the argument as to why the Labour Party didn't do better in the recent EU elections. My own take is that whether by design or accident, the continuing "talks" between the Tories and Labour right up to virtually the election itself damaged both sides. Neither side could be seen to campaign effectively for their candidates, because they would be accused by the other of bad faith and wanting the "ongoing discussions" to fail. The Tories would have been seen to be utter hypocrites while Labour would have been seen to be treacherous. In the end it damaged both.
Rather more salient is what the majority of Labour voters (or potential Labour voters) think, surely ?
As for you last paragraph, it seems pretty fanciful.
Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
> @justin124 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330 > > > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned > > > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful > > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
The candidates should debate in public. It was TM big failing
> @justin124 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330 > > > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned > > > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful > > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
> @williamglenn said: > > @Luckyguy1983 said: > > I think banning Campbell is a bit of a no lose situation, especially if he kicks up a stink about it, and I suspected it would come swiftly when the story of him not supporting Labour became public. It's the sort of break from the Blairite past that Corbyn's supporters like. It's what I think is called a 'wedge' issue. A lot of Corbyn's supporters love the EU, but I doubt they love Alistair Campbell. So this puts Corbyn on the right side of the argument. > -------------- > > Wedge issues are supposed to be used to divide your opponents, not your own side.
On the assumption that the Conservative electorate are beyond the point of no return on favouring No Deal Brexit, how should a candidate who isn't a natural No Dealer approach things?
I'm assuming said candidate is compelled to stay Tory because, with Corbyn and Farage in opposition, the Tory party is country argument is not totally baseless, lord help us.
Malthouse is pushing his idea again, essentially a replacement of the backstop by managed No Deal. One could hardball, but there's no reason to think the EU would agree anything of the sort.
So, said candidate might be tempted by a kind of reverse Malthouse, with the following elements:
1. Ask for extension to March, but be clear that this is further preparation time for No Deal. 2. Continue to see what can done to re-open and add further clarifications to WA, as something to have in the back pocket. Cultivate the WA. 3. Be generous with our offers on the exit payments, try and get the EU to itemize and separate them, so each payment is for a recognisable service or obligation. 4. Ask the 1922 to see what can be done to step suspend the Leader protection rule until 6 months after A50 conclusion, thus giving Remain minded Tories a safety valve. 5. Explore trade and regulatory opportunities of no deal.
Let the markets and shifting Tory opinion dictate whether no deal proceeds - if the Tories reject No Deal you'll be pretty confident the country decisively has and can pivot accordingly.
> @RobD said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330 > > > > > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned > > > > > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful > > > > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'! > > But the trend towards more debates is clear.
They are part of the political landscape now, but tend to just be a collection of platitudes, soundbites and gaffes. Proper debates like Heath vs Foot are not box office.
> @nico67 said: > If the Brexit Party agree a pact with the Tories at the next election the other parties need to do the same. > > In places where Lib Dems are second to the Tories , Labour and the Greens need to stand aside . > > Lib Dems need to reciprocate equally . I know many are uncomfortable with this but it would be a national emergency ! > > If they don’t they could allow in the most right wing government in the UK supported by the hate monger Farage.
It won't happen - and in any case there were very few seats where the LibDems were second in 2017 - even in the SouthWest!
> @oxfordsimon said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > I'm waiting for Oliver Letwin to run! > Grieve as well. He thinks he knows better than anyone else around him >
European planemaker Airbus wants to stay in the UK whatever the outcome of Brexit, as the country is “a very important pillar” for the company, new CEO Guillaume Faury said on Tuesday (21 May), amending negative comments made by his predecessor.
European planemaker Airbus wants to stay in the UK whatever the outcome of Brexit, as the country is “a very important pillar” for the company, new CEO Guillaume Faury said on Tuesday (21 May), amending negative comments made by his predecessor.
> @felix said: > > @NorthofStoke said: > > If there is a legal shenanigans over the expulsion of Alastair Campbell and that means the rigorous enforcement of rules without fear or favour then would the quote from JC included in Mike's tweet mean that the leader himself would have to be expelled? Are there other examples lying around? We can but dream. > > Same with the anti-semitism - how can you tackle something which begins with the one in charge.
Certainly the role of an overt and unashamed apologist for Stalin in Corbyn's inner circle should get more scrutiny. As Campbell alluded to this in his response it may well do.
> If the Brexit Party agree a pact with the Tories at the next election the other parties need to do the same.
>
> In places where Lib Dems are second to the Tories , Labour and the Greens need to stand aside .
>
> Lib Dems need to reciprocate equally . I know many are uncomfortable with this but it would be a national emergency !
>
> If they don’t they could allow in the most right wing government in the UK supported by the hate monger Farage.
It won't happen - and in any case there were very few seats where the LibDems were second in 2017 - even in the SouthWest!
The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered.
They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
> @TGOHF said: > > @oxfordsimon said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > I'm waiting for Oliver Letwin to run! > > Grieve as well. He thinks he knows better than anyone else around him > > > > When does Hammond enter the fray ?
He intends to hold Citzens' Assemblies and cross-party talks over Brexit mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury involving Len McCluskey and Mark Francois and Nigel Farage amongst others to avoid No Deal or EUref2.
Stewart also reveals he was a Labour Party member from 18 to 21 and first voted for the Tories in 2001 only as his mother cast his proxy vote
> @Foxy said: > > @RobD said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330 > > > > > > > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned > > > > > > > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful > > > > > > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'! > > > > But the trend towards more debates is clear. > > They are part of the political landscape now, but tend to just be a collection of platitudes, soundbites and gaffes. Proper debates like Heath vs Foot are not box office. > > https://youtu.be/uSkNTlz1hRg
Serious politicians are not obliged to go along with what the Broadcasters want.
He intends to hold Citzens' Assemblies and cross-party talks over Brexit mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury involving Len McCluskey and Mark Francois and Nigel Farage amongst others to avoid No Deal or EUref2.
Stewart also reveals he was a Labour Party member from 18 to 21 and first voted for the Tories in 2001 only as his mother cast his proxy vote
> @Gardenwalker said: > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered. > > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists. > > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
I believe their vote actually went down in O&S from the last Euros.
> @HYUFD said: > Rory Stewart interview in the Evening Standard. > > He intends to hold Citzens' Assemblies and cross-party talks over Brexit mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury involving Len McCluskey and Mark Francois and Nigel Farage amongst others. > > Stewart also reveals he was a Labour Party member from 18 to 21 and first voted for the Tories in 2001 only as his mother cast his proxy vote > > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rory-stewart-i-ve-negotiated-in-iraq-i-can-handle-the-tories-a4152766.html
On the assumption that the Conservative electorate are beyond the point of no return on favouring No Deal Brexit, how should a candidate who isn't a natural No Dealer approach things?
I'm assuming said candidate is compelled to stay Tory because, with Corbyn and Farage in opposition, the Tory party is country argument is not totally baseless, lord help us.
Malthouse is pushing his idea again, essentially a replacement of the backstop by managed No Deal. One could hardball, but there's no reason to think the EU would agree anything of the sort.
So, said candidate might be tempted by a kind of reverse Malthouse, with the following elements:
1. Ask for extension to March, but be clear that this is further preparation time for No Deal.
2. Continue to see what can done to re-open and add further clarifications to WA, as something to have in the back pocket. Cultivate the WA.
3. Be generous with our offers on the exit payments, try and get the EU to itemize and separate them, so each payment is for a recognisable service or obligation.
4. Ask the 1922 to see what can be done to step suspend the Leader protection rule until 6 months after A50 conclusion, thus giving Remain minded Tories a safety valve.
5. Explore trade and regulatory opportunities of no deal.
Let the markets and shifting Tory opinion dictate whether no deal proceeds - if the Tories reject No Deal you'll be pretty confident the country decisively has and can pivot accordingly.
High risk, but a chance of success?
Nil.
1) might work, might not 2) how many times do you need to be told no? 3) the EU won't itemise the payments 4) ok, but it's irrelevant 5) well yes, but has already been explained, it's a long process. It won't all be done by March.
> @Gardenwalker said: > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered. > > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists. > > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point.
Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets.
The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'.
The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'.
> @Gallowgate said: > The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'. > > Completely in denial.
> @Gallowgate said: > The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'. > > Completely in denial.
> @Gallowgate said: > The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'. > > Completely in denial.
It was the Lib Dems’ best EU election result ever.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330 > > > > > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned > > > > > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful > > > > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'! > > The candidates should debate in public. It was TM big failing
BUT if she had done a debate, Corbyn might have been in Downing Street.
> @Gallowgate said: > Are you challenging those facts? > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level.
Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
> @Black_Rook said: > > @Gardenwalker said: > > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered. > > > > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists. > > > > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney. > > Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point. > > Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets.
The map here shows strength across a lot of Shire England, and while the Peninsula is not so strong, the more proximal parts of the West Country are still strong.
1. Avoid Swinson 2. Announce a “radical remain” electoral alliance with the Greens 3. Publicly denounce their disastrous university fees policy (a clause 4 moment) 4. Devise a single eye catching policy that captures the spirit of the times: a penny on the pound for the age of AI.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @Gallowgate said: > > The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'. > > > > Completely in denial. > > It was the Lib Dems’ best EU election result ever.
That is true - but it was also an election from which the Tories and Labour had largely absented themselves. Both were only going through the motions.
> @justin124 said: > > @Gallowgate said: > > Are you challenging those facts? > > > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level. > > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course.
It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
> > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered.
> >
> > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
> >
> > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
>
> Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point.
>
> Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets.
The map here shows strength across a lot of Shire England, and while the Peninsula is not so strong, the more proximal parts of the West Country are still strong.
> @Gardenwalker said: > If the Lib Dems are serious they need to: > > 1. Avoid Swinson > 2. Announce a “radical remain” electoral alliance with the Greens > 3. Publicly denounce their disastrous university fees policy (a clause 4 moment) > 4. Devise a single eye catching policy that captures the spirit of the times: a penny on the pound for the age of AI. > > They are way too middle class and middle aged.
Swinson hasn't made the most of being Deputy Leader, being outshone by Layla, but she is fine. Personally I favour Lamb, but I don't think he will stand again. Tom Brake may do.
Re Alistair Campbell, here's another example of Corbyn's double standards.
Whilst a member of the Labour Party and working for Corbyn, Andrew Fisher actively campaigned for people in Croydon South to vote for the "Class War" candidate rather than Emily Benn the Labour Candidate, then celebrated when Ed Balls lost. After Corbyn became leader this came to light and he was suspended as a party member for a month in November 2015 (therefore continuing in his role working for Corbyn). As reward for his efforts, after swiftly being reinstated, in 2016 he was appointed as Labour's Executive Head of Policy.
> @Foxy said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Gallowgate said: > > > Are you challenging those facts? > > > > > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level. > > > > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago? > > Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course. > > It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
Based on the 2017 election? Or even the 2019 Local Elections? Since when were EU election results a better guide to the underlying strength of parties in the UK?
> The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'.
>
> Completely in denial.
It was the Lib Dems’ best EU election result ever.
Whether it matters or not I don’t know, but it was just Ed Miliband’s Labour voters swapping seats. Explicit Remain was down about 0.5% from 2014
> @WhisperingOracle said: > > @HYUFD said: > > Rory Stewart interview in the Evening Standard. > > > > He intends to hold Citzens' Assemblies and cross-party talks over Brexit mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury involving Len McCluskey and Mark Francois and Nigel Farage amongst others. > > > > Stewart also reveals he was a Labour Party member from 18 to 21 and first voted for the Tories in 2001 only as his mother cast his proxy vote > > > > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rory-stewart-i-ve-negotiated-in-iraq-i-can-handle-the-tories-a4152766.html > > ? ! > > A modern Macmillan it is - seriously.
That is just a hilarious piece. Life would never be dull with Rory the (mainly) Tory.
He isn't wrong, but his 'endorsement' is almost certainly counterproductive. Most Conservative MPs hate Bercow and if I was a betting man (What are you doing on this site? - Ed) then I'd suspect the membership think the same. A tip from Bercow weakens them, and he really should have thought about this first (or maybe he has).
> @Gardenwalker said: > > @Black_Rook said: > > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered. > > > > > > > > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists. > > > > > > > > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney. > > > > > > Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point. > > > > > > Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets. > > > > The map here shows strength across a lot of Shire England, and while the Peninsula is not so strong, the more proximal parts of the West Country are still strong. > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1133414178566365184 > > > > This looks like a map of “down from London” England rather than England profonde, if you get my difference.
I get what you are saying, but that is where the revival is taking place.
At the moment #BollocksToBrexit works, but there does need to be a more complete manifesto when Britain ends its monomania.
> > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level.
> >
> > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
>
> Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course.
>
> It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
Based on the 2017 election? Or even the 2019 Local Elections? Since when were EU election results a better guide to the underlying strength of parties in the UK?
Would be interesting to see UKIP 2014 Euros and Leave 2016 overlap
> @Foxy said: > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > @Black_Rook said: > > > > > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > > > > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered. > > > > > > > > > > > > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists. > > > > > > > > > > > > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney. > > > > > > > > > > Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point. > > > > > > > > > > Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets. > > > > > > > > The map here shows strength across a lot of Shire England, and while the Peninsula is not so strong, the more proximal parts of the West Country are still strong. > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1133414178566365184 > > > > > > > > This looks like a map of “down from London” England rather than England profonde, if you get my difference. > > I get what you are saying, but that is where the revival is taking place. > > At the moment #BollocksToBrexit works, but there does need to be a more complete manifesto when Britain ends its monomania.
> @Gallowgate said: > @Foxy the level of support in County Durham is interesting. Not what I'd have expected.
I note LibDems got 20% in Sunderland, and some council seats. Car workers maybe.
I would be interested in a second places map of the Euros, but cannot find one. I think Tories only came second in one. knowing which are Greens or LD would be a good pointer to potential gains at a GE.
> @Foxy said: > > @Gardenwalker said: > > If the Lib Dems are serious they need to: > > > > 1. Avoid Swinson > > 2. Announce a “radical remain” electoral alliance with the Greens > > 3. Publicly denounce their disastrous university fees policy (a clause 4 moment) > > 4. Devise a single eye catching policy that captures the spirit of the times: a penny on the pound for the age of AI. > > > > They are way too middle class and middle aged. > > Swinson hasn't made the most of being Deputy Leader, being outshone by Layla, but she is fine. Personally I favour Lamb, but I don't think he will stand again. Tom Brake may do.
I like Swinson, I think she is effective given the media backdrop in the Brexit supporting media. I do think a 'Remain Alliance' is the way forward.
> @viewcode said: > Putting aside my own preferences for a minute: > > > > On the assumption that the Conservative electorate are beyond the point of no return on favouring No Deal Brexit, how should a candidate who isn't a natural No Dealer approach things? > > > > I'm assuming said candidate is compelled to stay Tory because, with Corbyn and Farage in opposition, the Tory party is country argument is not totally baseless, lord help us. > > > > Malthouse is pushing his idea again, essentially a replacement of the backstop by managed No Deal. One could hardball, but there's no reason to think the EU would agree anything of the sort. > > > > So, said candidate might be tempted by a kind of reverse Malthouse, with the following elements: > > > > 1. Ask for extension to March, but be clear that this is further preparation time for No Deal. > > 2. Continue to see what can done to re-open and add further clarifications to WA, as something to have in the back pocket. Cultivate the WA. > > 3. Be generous with our offers on the exit payments, try and get the EU to itemize and separate them, so each payment is for a recognisable service or obligation. > > 4. Ask the 1922 to see what can be done to step suspend the Leader protection rule until 6 months after A50 conclusion, thus giving Remain minded Tories a safety valve. > > 5. Explore trade and regulatory opportunities of no deal. > > > > Let the markets and shifting Tory opinion dictate whether no deal proceeds - if the Tories reject No Deal you'll be pretty confident the country decisively has and can pivot accordingly. > > > > High risk, but a chance of success? > > Nil. > > 1) might work, might not > 2) how many times do you need to be told no? > 3) the EU won't itemise the payments > 4) ok, but it's irrelevant > 5) well yes, but has already been explained, it's a long process. It won't all be done by March.
Donna Toryhat:
2) don't matter, if 2 leaders have failed to get change, it's still in the back pocket 3) we'll need this for the PR. Do you want a dispute? Well, we'll itemize it- do you accept the money or not. 4) ditch leader is an alternative to vonc if Brexit discredited 5) yes, but ain't too late to deregulate
6) mini deals. Lots of mini deals.
The sum total gamble is either (1). no deal not as bad as feared, (2) no deal as bad as feared but someone can hit the brake (3) maybe the Tories can survive warp 10.
Putting that hat on , how would you play it as a No Deal sceptical potential leader?
I don't know if it's been discussed on here but Ashcroft has published his post-vote poll. I was interested in this section;
"Overall, 89% of Euro-election voters who voted Leave still want Brexit to happen – 55% of them with no deal – and 7% now say they want to remain. Meanwhile, 81% of remainers who voted last week say they still want to remain, with 15% now saying the best outcome would be to leave. Among all those voting in the European elections, 50% said they had voted to remain in the referendum and 45% to leave; now, 50% said they wanted to leave, 46% said they wanted to remain, and 4% didn’t know."
This seems to be at odds with other pollsters, where the movement is in the other direction. It would suggest the voters on Thursday were more 'Leaver'y than the average.
> @Foxy said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Gallowgate said: > > > Are you challenging those facts? > > > > > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level. > > > > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago? > > Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course. > > It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
It’s Tory council seats the greens have gobbled up.
> @TudorRose said: > I don't know if it's been discussed on here but Ashcroft has published his post-vote poll. I was interested in this section; > > "Overall, 89% of Euro-election voters who voted Leave still want Brexit to happen – 55% of them with no deal – and 7% now say they want to remain. Meanwhile, 81% of remainers who voted last week say they still want to remain, with 15% now saying the best outcome would be to leave. Among all those voting in the European elections, 50% said they had voted to remain in the referendum and 45% to leave; now, 50% said they wanted to leave, 46% said they wanted to remain, and 4% didn’t know." > > This seems to be at odds with other pollsters, where the movement is in the other direction. It would suggest the voters on Thursday were more 'Leaver'y than the average.
If you have a different cohort providing the data the result will be different. Voters are not the same as poll respondents. EU election voters are different to GE or Local election voters. Increasingly difficult to apply accurate filters to the data these days. We change more quickly, issues resonate more quickly.
I don't know if it's been discussed on here but Ashcroft has published his post-vote poll. I was interested in this section;
"Overall, 89% of Euro-election voters who voted Leave still want Brexit to happen – 55% of them with no deal – and 7% now say they want to remain. Meanwhile, 81% of remainers who voted last week say they still want to remain, with 15% now saying the best outcome would be to leave. Among all those voting in the European elections, 50% said they had voted to remain in the referendum and 45% to leave; now, 50% said they wanted to leave, 46% said they wanted to remain, and 4% didn’t know."
This seems to be at odds with other pollsters, where the movement is in the other direction. It would suggest the voters on Thursday were more 'Leaver'y than the average.
I believe this is explainable.
As far as I can tell, polling suggests a steadily increasing percentage of the population believe Brexit to have been a mistake, and in hindsight would have voted Remain.
However, overall the population is split roughly 50/50 on what to do *now*. A small but significant number of “Remainers” believe that we should Brexit in order to deliver the results of the referendum.
> @justin124 said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @Gallowgate said: > > > > Are you challenging those facts? > > > > > > > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level. > > > > > > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago? > > > > Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course. > > > > It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling. > > Based on the 2017 election? Or even the 2019 Local Elections? Since when were EU election results a better guide to the underlying strength of parties in the UK?
Once people change party for any election, they are unlikely to switch straight back. It is human nature and ominous for both Lab and Tories.
I remember all those kipper voters being counted as "Tories on holiday" in 2017. That turned out to not be true. I suspect all those "Labour on holiday" voters currently LD and Green will also not return at next GE.
Feel free to not believe me, I am merely an amateur pundit.
After the Second World War, Einstein was finished with the Germans for good. He refused to have anything to do with them "out of a need for cleanliness".
Similarly, Labour should have nothing to do with Alistair Campbell "out of a need for cleanliness".
Comments
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
>
> If it ultimately comes to a Tory Government insisting on no-deal, then there are sufficient numbers of Conservative MPs who will join a majority to stop them —
>
> Sure. But does spreadsheet Phil want to secure his place in history as the chap who ended the Conservative party ?
>
> Would suggest a boldness that has never appeared in any of his policies.
He'd probably prefer to go down in history as the chap who ended the Conservative Party than the chap who wrecked the country and I suspect that that is how he sees it.
> Sort of on topic, I agree that the Conservative Party is basically finished either way.
>
> I see this choice as picking the most competent PM to steer the ship, and salvage what can be salvaged from the wreck.
>
> That turns my thoughts to the likes of Michael Gove and Matt Hancock.
>
> Winning the next General Election is a luxury right now.
Hancock has been pretty innocuous and invisible at Health. What convinces you that he has a chance? he is not in my book.
Hunt is pretty capable, and astute enough to abandon the fight at Health. He hasbeen good at the FCO. Top of my book, along with Gove, though I am also green on Baker and McVey, asprobably the worst suited to be PM, therefore likely to be chosen.
> > @isam said:
> > If either make the final two, Priti or Baker could be the Tory Corbyn
>
> Assuming Bakers out because you can't have a backbencher becoming PM and Priti won't have any support Boris is the most "pure" followed by Raab and Mcvey.
There are many adjectives that could be used to describe Boris but "pure" is not one of them.
> > @Barnesian said:
> > I'm really confused by the distinction between English, British and UKish. I'm sure foreigners are completely bewildered! I honestly don't know what my nationality is. I pause on forms when I'm asked. I search the drop down menu to see what is on top, because that is the answer they probably want. It is a farce.
> >
> > Basically I feel I'm English because that distinguishes me from the distinct nationalities of Scottish and Welsh, but I'm certainly not a nationalist, small-c socially conservative, economically protectionist, older non-graduate!
> >
> > I also feel strongly European with lots in common, certainly with Western Europe, less so with Eastern Europe.
> >
> > Third in line for me is British. I feel a special affinity with my neighbours, the Scots and Welsh, so let's call it British. It has no other overtones for me than that. It's not a particularly useful word.
> >
> > Fourth and almost undetectable is UKish. I don't feel that at all. I feel particularly close to the Irish, more so than the Scots or Welsh, but UKish is a mongrel. I would never ever describe myself as a Unionist, which I suppose is the alternative for UKish.
>
> What about the sporting test (much beloved of dear Norm?)
>
> I was born in Wales; I support England in all major supports and GB at the Olympics (and the Lions). Europe in the Ryder Cup.
>
> Tabman Jr qualifies for all four home nations.
*******************************************************************************
I don't follow sport but I occasionally bet against England using the betting principle that the odds are probably distorted by sentiment. Otherwise I don't follow or support any sports team or individual (except Nadal).
> If either make the final two, Priti or Baker could be the Tory Corbyn
Yes, only two of them pass the purity test.
Has #Priti4Leader declared as a candidate yet?
As in a previous meme, it was discussed that the pressure on political parties to fill the "Centre Ground" is not only wrong, but counter productive. Members of the Tories are now demonstratedly more to the right of the leadership which is why the contenders to the throne of no 10 are now drifting to the Farage side of the argument. While in the Labour Party, the Blairittes are in danger of being swamped by the new left thinking mass membership.
Of course the argument as to why the Labour Party didn't do better in the recent EU elections. My own take is that whether by design or accident, the continuing "talks" between the Tories and Labour right up to virtually the election itself damaged both sides. Neither side could be seen to campaign effectively for their candidates, because they would be accused by the other of bad faith and wanting the "ongoing discussions" to fail. The Tories would have been seen to be utter hypocrites while Labour would have been seen to be treacherous. In the end it damaged both.
I don't like the man but really don't see he did anything wrong in this case.
Hancock has been fluent, rational and balanced in his interviews so far and broad-minded in expanding the Tories appeal. He also has experience of writing manifestos and is young and fresh enough to look like a reboot. If he makes it to the final four then he might make to the ballot and it’s not inconceivable he could win up against Hunt, Javid or even Boris as a future election winner.
Full disclosure: I got £10 on Hancock at 130/1 last year.
> I would take issue with Mr Smithson in that the majority of Labour Party members are actually quite glad to see the back of Campbell, while there is also a consensus building to force an election for the Deputy Leader at Conference.
>
> As in a previous meme, it was discussed that the pressure on political parties to fill the "Centre Ground" is not only wrong, but counter productive. Members of the Tories are now demonstratedly more to the right of the leadership which is why the contenders to the throne of no 10 are now drifting to the Farage side of the argument. While in the Labour Party, the Blairittes are in danger of being swamped by the new left thinking mass membership.
>
> Of course the argument as to why the Labour Party didn't do better in the recent EU elections. My own take is that whether by design or accident, the continuing "talks" between the Tories and Labour right up to virtually the election itself damaged both sides. Neither side could be seen to campaign effectively for their candidates, because they would be accused by the other of bad faith and wanting the "ongoing discussions" to fail. The Tories would have been seen to be utter hypocrites while Labour would have been seen to be treacherous. In the end it damaged both.
The reason is simple. It was a single issue election, on this issue Labour has a centrist position, centrism is electoral poison
> If there is a legal shenanigans over the expulsion of Alastair Campbell and that means the rigorous enforcement of rules without fear or favour then would the quote from JC included in Mike's tweet mean that the leader himself would have to be expelled? Are there other examples lying around? We can but dream.
Same with the anti-semitism - how can you tackle something which begins with the one in charge.
> If either make the final two, Priti or Baker could be the Tory Corbyn
>
>
> For all those of us who are terrible at faces, who are those people?
From the top:
Baker, Patel, Boris, Raab/McVey, ?, Cleverly/Gove, Leadsom, Hunt/?, Javid/Stewart
> https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1133420071190245378
Which party?
> https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1133420071190245378
I'm waiting for Oliver Letwin to run!
> > @viewcode said:
> > If either make the final two, Priti or Baker could be the Tory Corbyn
> >
> >
> > For all those of us who are terrible at faces, who are those people?
>
> From the top:
> Baker, Patel, Boris, Raab/McVey, ?, Cleverly/Gove, Leadsom, Hunt/?, Javid/Stewart
? = Malthouse - second ? = Hancock
A voter has up to two votes. They can choose either a single option or two as first and second preferences. If an option gets above 50% from single or first preference votes then it wins. If not then all second preferences are then added to the first preferences and the winner is the option with the highest total. The approach ensures that in the event that an option does not not command a majority then the option that most can live with will pass. It overcomes the STV problem where the compromise option will fall at the first hurdle in a polarised atmosphere.
I make no claims to originality, I can't remember seeing this proposed elsewhere but it might have been unconsciously absorbed..
European planemaker Airbus wants to stay in the UK whatever the outcome of Brexit, as the country is “a very important pillar” for the company, new CEO Guillaume Faury said on Tuesday (21 May), amending negative comments made by his predecessor.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/aviation/news/airbus-now-wants-to-remain-in-uk-regardless-of-brexit-outcome/
> Bercows decision further increases the likelihood of an October general election and a Brexit Party/Con pact IMO.
Watching a Brexit Party government trying to run the country would almost be worth the pain.
As for you last paragraph, it seems pretty fanciful.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
>
> Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned
>
> Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful
Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
> >
> > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned
> >
> > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful
>
> Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
The candidates should debate in public. It was TM big failing
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
> >
> > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned
> >
> > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful
>
> Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
But the trend towards more debates is clear.
> > @Luckyguy1983 said:
> > I think banning Campbell is a bit of a no lose situation, especially if he kicks up a stink about it, and I suspected it would come swiftly when the story of him not supporting Labour became public. It's the sort of break from the Blairite past that Corbyn's supporters like. It's what I think is called a 'wedge' issue. A lot of Corbyn's supporters love the EU, but I doubt they love Alistair Campbell. So this puts Corbyn on the right side of the argument.
> --------------
>
> Wedge issues are supposed to be used to divide your opponents, not your own side.
The Labour Party ARE their opponents
On the assumption that the Conservative electorate are beyond the point of no return on favouring No Deal Brexit, how should a candidate who isn't a natural No Dealer approach things?
I'm assuming said candidate is compelled to stay Tory because, with Corbyn and Farage in opposition, the Tory party is country argument is not totally baseless, lord help us.
Malthouse is pushing his idea again, essentially a replacement of the backstop by managed No Deal. One could hardball, but there's no reason to think the EU would agree anything of the sort.
So, said candidate might be tempted by a kind of reverse Malthouse, with the following elements:
1. Ask for extension to March, but be clear that this is further preparation time for No Deal.
2. Continue to see what can done to re-open and add further clarifications to WA, as something to have in the back pocket. Cultivate the WA.
3. Be generous with our offers on the exit payments, try and get the EU to itemize and separate them, so each payment is for a recognisable service or obligation.
4. Ask the 1922 to see what can be done to step suspend the Leader protection rule until 6 months after A50 conclusion, thus giving Remain minded Tories a safety valve.
5. Explore trade and regulatory opportunities of no deal.
Let the markets and shifting Tory opinion dictate whether no deal proceeds - if the Tories reject No Deal you'll be pretty confident the country decisively has and can pivot accordingly.
High risk, but a chance of success?
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
> > >
> > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned
> > >
> > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful
> >
> > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
>
> But the trend towards more debates is clear.
They are part of the political landscape now, but tend to just be a collection of platitudes, soundbites and gaffes. Proper debates like Heath vs Foot are not box office.
https://youtu.be/uSkNTlz1hRg
> I'm waiting for Oliver Letwin to run!
Grieve as well. He thinks he knows better than anyone else around him
> If the Brexit Party agree a pact with the Tories at the next election the other parties need to do the same.
>
> In places where Lib Dems are second to the Tories , Labour and the Greens need to stand aside .
>
> Lib Dems need to reciprocate equally . I know many are uncomfortable with this but it would be a national emergency !
>
> If they don’t they could allow in the most right wing government in the UK supported by the hate monger Farage.
It won't happen - and in any case there were very few seats where the LibDems were second in 2017 - even in the SouthWest!
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > I'm waiting for Oliver Letwin to run!
> Grieve as well. He thinks he knows better than anyone else around him
>
When does Hammond enter the fray ?
> I'm very against the idea of media organisations trying to dictate the terms of a political contest.
+1
> > @NorthofStoke said:
> > If there is a legal shenanigans over the expulsion of Alastair Campbell and that means the rigorous enforcement of rules without fear or favour then would the quote from JC included in Mike's tweet mean that the leader himself would have to be expelled? Are there other examples lying around? We can but dream.
>
> Same with the anti-semitism - how can you tackle something which begins with the one in charge.
Certainly the role of an overt and unashamed apologist for Stalin in Corbyn's inner circle should get more scrutiny. As Campbell alluded to this in his response it may well do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Murray_(trade_unionist)
They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
> > @oxfordsimon said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > I'm waiting for Oliver Letwin to run!
> > Grieve as well. He thinks he knows better than anyone else around him
> >
>
> When does Hammond enter the fray ?
He doesn't. His role is pulling the strings.
https://twitter.com/C9J/status/1133398571242414080
He intends to hold Citzens' Assemblies and cross-party talks over Brexit mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury involving Len McCluskey and Mark Francois and Nigel Farage amongst others to avoid No Deal or EUref2.
Stewart also reveals he was a Labour Party member from 18 to 21 and first voted for the Tories in 2001 only as his mother cast his proxy vote
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rory-stewart-i-ve-negotiated-in-iraq-i-can-handle-the-tories-a4152766.html
> > @RobD said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
> > > >
> > > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned
> > > >
> > > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful
> > >
> > > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
> >
> > But the trend towards more debates is clear.
>
> They are part of the political landscape now, but tend to just be a collection of platitudes, soundbites and gaffes. Proper debates like Heath vs Foot are not box office.
>
> https://youtu.be/uSkNTlz1hRg
Serious politicians are not obliged to go along with what the Broadcasters want.
> The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered.
>
> They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
>
> Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
I believe their vote actually went down in O&S from the last Euros.
> Rory Stewart interview in the Evening Standard.
>
> He intends to hold Citzens' Assemblies and cross-party talks over Brexit mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury involving Len McCluskey and Mark Francois and Nigel Farage amongst others.
>
> Stewart also reveals he was a Labour Party member from 18 to 21 and first voted for the Tories in 2001 only as his mother cast his proxy vote
>
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rory-stewart-i-ve-negotiated-in-iraq-i-can-handle-the-tories-a4152766.html
? !
A modern Macmillan it is - seriously.
1) might work, might not
2) how many times do you need to be told no?
3) the EU won't itemise the payments
4) ok, but it's irrelevant
5) well yes, but has already been explained, it's a long process. It won't all be done by March.
> The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered.
>
> They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
>
> Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point.
Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets.
Hancock continues to surprise us.
https://twitter.com/matthancock/status/1013786371096547328?s=21
> @RobD , @Big_G_NorthWales , thank you both for the IDs.
Pleasure
> The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'.
>
> Completely in denial.
Are you challenging those facts?
> The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'.
>
> Completely in denial.
He really is on another planet
> The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'.
>
> Completely in denial.
It was the Lib Dems’ best EU election result ever.
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1133399546573283330
> > >
> > > Great news. I have been hoping for that since TM resigned
> > >
> > > Will be very interesting and the polling during or after will be very useful
> >
> > Apparently the candidates have not agreed to this and this appears to be an attempt by the Broadcasters to bounce them into debates. Personally I would like to see them respond with a polite 'Get Stuffed'. I resent the Broadcasters presuming they have a right to determine how these contests should be conducted. There were no such Debates between Heath , Thatcher, Whitelaw , Prior et al in 1975 - nor in 1976 between Callaghan, Foot, Healey, Jenkins, Benn and Crosland. Foot and Healey did not debate in 1980 - neither did Kinnock and Hattersley in 1983 - nor Smith and Gould in 1992. When Thatcher stood down in 1990 , there were several interviews of Major, Heseltine and Hurd - but no Debates. If the candidates want this to happen - fair enough . Failing that , I would like to see them tell the Broadcasters to 'Clear off'!
>
> The candidates should debate in public. It was TM big failing
BUT if she had done a debate, Corbyn might have been in Downing Street.
> Are you challenging those facts?
>
> We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level.
Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
> > @Gardenwalker said:
> > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered.
> >
> > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
> >
> > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
>
> Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point.
>
> Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets.
The map here shows strength across a lot of Shire England, and while the Peninsula is not so strong, the more proximal parts of the West Country are still strong.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1133414178566365184?s=19
1. Avoid Swinson
2. Announce a “radical remain” electoral alliance with the Greens
3. Publicly denounce their disastrous university fees policy (a clause 4 moment)
4. Devise a single eye catching policy that captures the spirit of the times: a penny on the pound for the age of AI.
They are way too middle class and middle aged.
> > @Gallowgate said:
> > The relative LibDem success in the EU elections needs to be seen in context. They polled 20% and much of that was clearly a protest vote . In the May 2017 Local Elections they obtained 18% - yet five weeks later at the General Election managed just 7.5%. 'Easy come - easy go'.
> >
> > Completely in denial.
>
> It was the Lib Dems’ best EU election result ever.
That is true - but it was also an election from which the Tories and Labour had largely absented themselves. Both were only going through the motions.
> > @Gallowgate said:
> > Are you challenging those facts?
> >
> > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level.
>
> Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course.
It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
I have no doubt that some will, but once people have a taste, it's going to be tough. See Scotland.
> If the Lib Dems are serious they need to:
>
> 1. Avoid Swinson
> 2. Announce a “radical remain” electoral alliance with the Greens
> 3. Publicly denounce their disastrous university fees policy (a clause 4 moment)
> 4. Devise a single eye catching policy that captures the spirit of the times: a penny on the pound for the age of AI.
>
> They are way too middle class and middle aged.
Swinson hasn't made the most of being Deputy Leader, being outshone by Layla, but she is fine. Personally I favour Lamb, but I don't think he will stand again. Tom Brake may do.
Whilst a member of the Labour Party and working for Corbyn, Andrew Fisher actively campaigned for people in Croydon South to vote for the "Class War" candidate rather than Emily Benn the Labour Candidate, then celebrated when Ed Balls lost. After Corbyn became leader this came to light and he was suspended as a party member for a month in November 2015 (therefore continuing in his role working for Corbyn). As reward for his efforts, after swiftly being reinstated, in 2016 he was appointed as Labour's Executive Head of Policy.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/80902/anger-controversial-jeremy-corbyn-aide-andrew
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Gallowgate said:
> > > Are you challenging those facts?
> > >
> > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level.
> >
> > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
>
> Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course.
>
> It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
Based on the 2017 election? Or even the 2019 Local Elections? Since when were EU election results a better guide to the underlying strength of parties in the UK?
> > @HYUFD said:
> > Rory Stewart interview in the Evening Standard.
> >
> > He intends to hold Citzens' Assemblies and cross-party talks over Brexit mediated by the Archbishop of Canterbury involving Len McCluskey and Mark Francois and Nigel Farage amongst others.
> >
> > Stewart also reveals he was a Labour Party member from 18 to 21 and first voted for the Tories in 2001 only as his mother cast his proxy vote
> >
> > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rory-stewart-i-ve-negotiated-in-iraq-i-can-handle-the-tories-a4152766.html
>
> ? !
>
> A modern Macmillan it is - seriously.
That is just a hilarious piece. Life would never be dull with Rory the (mainly) Tory.
> > @Black_Rook said:
>
> > > @Gardenwalker said:
>
> > > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered.
>
> > >
>
> > > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
>
> > >
>
> > > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
>
> >
>
> > Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point.
>
> >
>
> > Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets.
>
>
>
> The map here shows strength across a lot of Shire England, and while the Peninsula is not so strong, the more proximal parts of the West Country are still strong.
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1133414178566365184
>
>
>
> This looks like a map of “down from London” England rather than England profonde, if you get my difference.
I get what you are saying, but that is where the revival is taking place.
At the moment #BollocksToBrexit works, but there does need to be a more complete manifesto when Britain ends its monomania.
> > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > @Black_Rook said:
> >
> > > > @Gardenwalker said:
> >
> > > > The Lib Dems did not do overly well in the SW in the Euros, all things considered.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > They’ve become - for now - a party for middle aged, relatively well-off centrists.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Their historic strength in the remoter, less industrial, and more non-conformist (maybe even recusant Catholic) parts of the country is now gone - save perhaps Shetland and Orkney.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Not strictly true - the membership and the local government base in the SW hasn't disappeared. But I take the point.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Whilst they'll be hoping to claw back some Parliamentary strength in the south-west at the next GE, you'd think their best chance of significant advancement would be in the south-east, specifically in those parts with existing Lib Dem strength and big concentrations of Remainer sentiment, and where they came top in the latest Euro election. Cambridge, St Albans, Guildford, Watford and Winchester all look like prime targets.
> >
> >
> >
> > The map here shows strength across a lot of Shire England, and while the Peninsula is not so strong, the more proximal parts of the West Country are still strong.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1133414178566365184
> >
> >
> >
> > This looks like a map of “down from London” England rather than England profonde, if you get my difference.
>
> I get what you are saying, but that is where the revival is taking place.
>
> At the moment #BollocksToBrexit works, but there does need to be a more complete manifesto when Britain ends its monomania.
They’ve got plenty of time to work on that.
> @Foxy the level of support in County Durham is interesting. Not what I'd have expected.
I note LibDems got 20% in Sunderland, and some council seats. Car workers maybe.
I would be interested in a second places map of the Euros, but cannot find one. I think Tories only came second in one. knowing which are Greens or LD would be a good pointer to potential gains at a GE.
> > @Gardenwalker said:
> > If the Lib Dems are serious they need to:
> >
> > 1. Avoid Swinson
> > 2. Announce a “radical remain” electoral alliance with the Greens
> > 3. Publicly denounce their disastrous university fees policy (a clause 4 moment)
> > 4. Devise a single eye catching policy that captures the spirit of the times: a penny on the pound for the age of AI.
> >
> > They are way too middle class and middle aged.
>
> Swinson hasn't made the most of being Deputy Leader, being outshone by Layla, but she is fine. Personally I favour Lamb, but I don't think he will stand again. Tom Brake may do.
I like Swinson, I think she is effective given the media backdrop in the Brexit supporting media. I do think a 'Remain Alliance' is the way forward.
> Putting aside my own preferences for a minute:
>
>
>
> On the assumption that the Conservative electorate are beyond the point of no return on favouring No Deal Brexit, how should a candidate who isn't a natural No Dealer approach things?
>
>
>
> I'm assuming said candidate is compelled to stay Tory because, with Corbyn and Farage in opposition, the Tory party is country argument is not totally baseless, lord help us.
>
>
>
> Malthouse is pushing his idea again, essentially a replacement of the backstop by managed No Deal. One could hardball, but there's no reason to think the EU would agree anything of the sort.
>
>
>
> So, said candidate might be tempted by a kind of reverse Malthouse, with the following elements:
>
>
>
> 1. Ask for extension to March, but be clear that this is further preparation time for No Deal.
>
> 2. Continue to see what can done to re-open and add further clarifications to WA, as something to have in the back pocket. Cultivate the WA.
>
> 3. Be generous with our offers on the exit payments, try and get the EU to itemize and separate them, so each payment is for a recognisable service or obligation.
>
> 4. Ask the 1922 to see what can be done to step suspend the Leader protection rule until 6 months after A50 conclusion, thus giving Remain minded Tories a safety valve.
>
> 5. Explore trade and regulatory opportunities of no deal.
>
>
>
> Let the markets and shifting Tory opinion dictate whether no deal proceeds - if the Tories reject No Deal you'll be pretty confident the country decisively has and can pivot accordingly.
>
>
>
> High risk, but a chance of success?
>
> Nil.
>
> 1) might work, might not
> 2) how many times do you need to be told no?
> 3) the EU won't itemise the payments
> 4) ok, but it's irrelevant
> 5) well yes, but has already been explained, it's a long process. It won't all be done by March.
Donna Toryhat:
2) don't matter, if 2 leaders have failed to get change, it's still in the back pocket
3) we'll need this for the PR. Do you want a dispute? Well, we'll itemize it- do you accept the money or not.
4) ditch leader is an alternative to vonc if Brexit discredited
5) yes, but ain't too late to deregulate
6) mini deals. Lots of mini deals.
The sum total gamble is either (1). no deal not as bad as feared, (2) no deal as bad as feared but someone can hit the brake (3) maybe the Tories can survive warp 10.
Putting that hat on , how would you play it as a No Deal sceptical potential leader?
"Overall, 89% of Euro-election voters who voted Leave still want Brexit to happen – 55% of them with no deal – and 7% now say they want to remain. Meanwhile, 81% of remainers who voted last week say they still want to remain, with 15% now saying the best outcome would be to leave. Among all those voting in the European elections, 50% said they had voted to remain in the referendum and 45% to leave; now, 50% said they wanted to leave, 46% said they wanted to remain, and 4% didn’t know."
This seems to be at odds with other pollsters, where the movement is in the other direction. It would suggest the voters on Thursday were more 'Leaver'y than the average.
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Gallowgate said:
> > > Are you challenging those facts?
> > >
> > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level.
> >
> > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
>
> Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course.
>
> It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
It’s Tory council seats the greens have gobbled up.
Gove now 2nd fav
Raab now 3rd fav
> I don't know if it's been discussed on here but Ashcroft has published his post-vote poll. I was interested in this section;
>
> "Overall, 89% of Euro-election voters who voted Leave still want Brexit to happen – 55% of them with no deal – and 7% now say they want to remain. Meanwhile, 81% of remainers who voted last week say they still want to remain, with 15% now saying the best outcome would be to leave. Among all those voting in the European elections, 50% said they had voted to remain in the referendum and 45% to leave; now, 50% said they wanted to leave, 46% said they wanted to remain, and 4% didn’t know."
>
> This seems to be at odds with other pollsters, where the movement is in the other direction. It would suggest the voters on Thursday were more 'Leaver'y than the average.
If you have a different cohort providing the data the result will be different. Voters are not the same as poll respondents. EU election voters are different to GE or Local election voters. Increasingly difficult to apply accurate filters to the data these days. We change more quickly, issues resonate more quickly.
As far as I can tell, polling suggests a steadily increasing percentage of the population believe Brexit to have been a mistake, and in hindsight would have voted Remain.
However, overall the population is split roughly 50/50 on what to do *now*.
A small but significant number of “Remainers” believe that we should Brexit in order to deliver the results of the referendum.
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @Gallowgate said:
> > > > Are you challenging those facts?
> > > >
> > > > We all know that Lib Dems have historically done well at a local level.
> > >
> > > Do you seriously believe that a sudden surge over a period of days is likely to be solidly based - particularly on a turnout of under 37%? Is there a core LibDem vote which did not exist 2 weeks ago?
> >
> > Well, lets see, but Labour should be worried. Increasingly LD are second placed in Tory seats as the challengers, and in urban areas the Greens are a threat to Labour. In the old coalfields the BXP of course.
> >
> > It is not just the Tories looking over the cliff and wobbling.
>
> Based on the 2017 election? Or even the 2019 Local Elections? Since when were EU election results a better guide to the underlying strength of parties in the UK?
Once people change party for any election, they are unlikely to switch straight back. It is human nature and ominous for both Lab and Tories.
I remember all those kipper voters being counted as "Tories on holiday" in 2017. That turned out to not be true. I suspect all those "Labour on holiday" voters currently LD and Green will also not return at next GE.
Feel free to not believe me, I am merely an amateur pundit.
> I like Rory. He has a personality!
And can clearly think on his feet.
A quality not exactly conspicuous in most of the contenders ... or the departing PM.
Same might be said for ChUK to LD
"UK - Party Leaders - Tory Leader Contest - Make Final 2"
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.159279442
> https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1133387327198375936?s=20
But who is the wig voting for?
Similarly, Labour should have nothing to do with Alistair Campbell "out of a need for cleanliness".
Let the LibDems have him.
> twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1133431822518558727?s=20
Somebody has learned from the James Blunt school of social media....