I don't know why you think Ed Davey is such a positive force for "being involved in Government" and Jo Swinson isn't but that's your view to which you are entitled.
Jo served in the Coalition Government as well but "being involved in Government" next time won't be the same. I merely point out the lessons of the 2010-15 experience haven't been lost on the LDs. If of course you see the LD role as simply being there to prop up Conservative Government ad infinitum you are going to be disappointed and perhaps a prolonged spell in Opposition may be no bad thing as your Party looks tired, divided and lacking in any kind of meaningful direction.
The LibDems have drawn the wrong lessons from the coalition experience. They should celebrate it - which shouldn't be hard, given that it was the best government for decades and better than anything we're likely to get in the years to come. Instead they seem to think it was a disaster. It's a really bizarre way to try to get votes, even at a time when Labour and the Tories are shovelling votes in your direction.
The Tories have drawn the wrong lesson, seeing it and their partners as something to be killed off. If the Tories had celebrated it, we and they might all be in a much better position right now
Had the Tories agreed to not stand against the Lib Dems in their seats, do you think the Lib Dems would have agreed to an In/Out referendum were the coalition to be returned to power?
It’s s bit unfair on Javid to expect omniscience about financial matters. My MP was a manager at LIdl but I wouldn’t blame him for the failure or Woolworths.
An interesting positive straw in the wind for the Roryites hoping he'll make the 33 threshold has been the slow or lack of further endorsements for the second ballot of his rivals.
Gove and Rabb have added one and Javid and Hunt none. Stewart has added four and he significantly outperformed his declared backers last time. He needs to do so again to progress.
Yes, I think he'll probably make the 33.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Hunt probably looked the most prime ministerial in the debate, even if Rory was more interesting.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
On topic: The choice for the LibDems is simple. If they want to feel good about themselves as a party of protest, they should choose Jo Swinson. If on the other hand they want to be part of a realignment in politics which could lead to them having a significant role in how the country is governed, they should choose Ed Davey. I expect they want the former.
It's always nice to hear the Conservative perspective on these things.
Given our experience of "having a significant role in Government" last time, you'll forgive me if I take the view the spoon isn't long enough for the Party to sup with either your lot or Corbyn but if circumstances compelled otherwise, I'd demand STV implemented for all elections without a referendum before any kind of negotiation.
The prospect of having to deal with Johnson, Corbyn or Farage is truly stomach-churning but be assured the next time the LDs find themselves with the balance of power the price of our support will be higher than you can possibly imagine.
Please, please, please next time take at least a month to draw up a legally binding coalition contract for the whole parliamentary term. Don't be dazzled by the bright headlights of power and essentially sign away power to the major party.
Don't listen to the right wing press who will say the country is in a rudderless crisis. The previous government functioned perfectly well for the 6 weeks with no parliamentary support during the GE campaign and can easily cope with another couple of months with no new legislation.
I think that the Coalition Agreement was a remarkable document and fairly even in the concessions made by both sides. Where the problem arose was governing and events after the CA was in force. The Lib Dems rolled over much too readily to stay in government. The quad gave an element of stability to the government but Osborne in particular seemed to run rings around Clegg and Alexander. As the SPD in Germany are finding to their cost the priority for the minority party in a coalition is to retain their identity and voice. They should watch and learn from how the DUP have performed.
Amazing this is dismissed as hypothetical, when leave won three years ago, while the actual hypothetical is "eminently possible"!!!
I wasn't dismissing anything. Just pointing out that there is non trivial possibility that Labour win a pre-Brexit election, hold a 2nd referendum which Remain wins, and as a consequence Brexit is cancelled - in which case the debate around what kind of post-Brexit policies our governments pursue becomes a hypothetical one. Statement of cold hard fact, that is.
But my main point is that if Brexit does happen, and these post-Brexit policies end up being of the centrist sort that could just as easily have been implemented as an EU member, then it could well be argued that leaving had proved a monumental waste of time and money and energy.
FWIW, I think the Cons and DUP should have supported their government and voted Brexit through. The 2016 referendum was a clear instruction to leave.
I'll add my thanks to Dr Fox for the update and good to see @Icarus still with us,
I still haven't decided - there is the veritable cigarette paper between Jo and Ed on most issues. Both are tainted by the Coalition as some would see it but in a Party where three quarters of the membership joined after 2015 that doesn't have the resonance it seems to so with some (and notably the anti-LDs) on here.
Choosing Ed would mean the three parties would all be led by London MPs which sends a message of sorts to the rest of the UK and while that's not a good reason for choosing Jo it wouldn't be a bad reason.
Likewise, I'm an undecided voter looking for a killer reason to go for one or the other. Would be happy with either.
I'd assumed I'd support Jo; great communicator, passionate speaker and she seems ready after a gaffe-free stint as deputy.
Jo won a seat that should never have been Lib Dem; Ed won a more natural seat but with naff all central support. Both impressive achievements, and I admire their sticking power to come back from 2015. However it does seem that Lib Dem priorities have changed from simply "get noticed" which it's been since 2015. Not yet ready to form a Government but I'm now thinking more seriously about policy, who could build alliances and negotiate deals if needed.
Still leaning Jo, I simply think that she can take opponents apart more easily. She sliced Barry Gardiner into pieces on the local election results show this year and I've no doubt she could do the same to Corbyn. My main fear was that she'd turn the Lib Dems into the 'gender neutral bathroom' party which would be a big turn off for me - but she seems rooted in Brexit, green economy and anticipating tech changes to the workplace which seem the right priorities. I can't see Ed having quite the same impact against opponents, does he have the star quality that is needed in a Lib Dem leader? Is he Jeremy Hunt to Swinson's Rory Stewart?
But Ed is having a stronger leadership campaign than I'd anticipated. Still 60:40 for Jo but that's closer than it was a fortnight ago.
I disagree re- Swinson's performance on the Local Election results programme. Thought she was very unimpressive and lightweight - indeed more so than Tim Farron.
I think Swinson is always unimpressive and don't get the hype about her at all
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
The value bet from here is probably Gove. I think he's best placed to make the runoff.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
I don't know why you think Ed Davey is such a positive force for "being involved in Government" and Jo Swinson isn't but that's your view to which you are entitled.
Jo served in the Coalition Government as well but "being involved in Government" next time won't be the same. I merely point out the lessons of the 2010-15 experience haven't been lost on the LDs. If of course you see the LD role as simply being there to prop up Conservative Government ad infinitum you are going to be disappointed and perhaps a prolonged spell in Opposition may be no bad thing as your Party looks tired, divided and lacking in any kind of meaningful direction.
The LibDems have drawn the wrong lessons from the coalition experience. They should celebrate it - which shouldn't be hard, given that it was the best government for decades and better than anything we're likely to get in the years to come. Instead they seem to think it was a disaster. It's a really bizarre way to try to get votes, even at a time when Labour and the Tories are shovelling votes in your direction.
The Tories have drawn the wrong lesson, seeing it and their partners as something to be killed off. If the Tories had celebrated it, we and they might all be in a much better position right now
Had the Tories agreed to not stand against the Lib Dems in their seats, do you think the Lib Dems would have agreed to an In/Out referendum were the coalition to be returned to power?
Neither side would have wanted an electoral pact. Nevertheless only Cameron really saw the historic opportunity the coalition presented the Tories, and he threw it away and broke his promise to Clegg by fighting the AV referendum in a cynical, negative and highly personal way.
It is remarkable that it never occurred to Cammo that he might lose his own referendum to similarly dishonest tactics.
The Lib Dem problem with the Coalition is that the Tories took the credit for popular Lib Dem policies that they were forced to implement, like increasing the personal allowance and the pupil premium, and the Lib Dems took the blame for unpopular Tory policies that they had to accept, like tuition fees and austerity in general.
The one policy that the Lib Dems won from the Coalition that the Tories weren't happy about was electoral reform, and they botched that by having it contingent on a referendum which they then lost.
Next time they would need to have some clear wins so that they could say to the electorate: You voted for us and in return you received these things, a, b and c, that you like that they didn't want you to have. Vote for us again and we'll force them to give you x, y and z and protect a, b and c.
I don't know why you think Ed Davey is such a positive force for "being involved in Government" and Jo Swinson isn't but that's your view to which you are entitled.
Jo served in the Coalition Government as well but "being involved in Government" next time won't be the same. I merely point out the lessons of the 2010-15 experience haven't been lost on the LDs. If of course you see the LD role as simply being there to prop up Conservative Government ad infinitum you are going to be disappointed and perhaps a prolonged spell in Opposition may be no bad thing as your Party looks tired, divided and lacking in any kind of meaningful direction.
The LibDems have drawn the wrong lessons from the coalition experience. They should celebrate it - which shouldn't be hard, given that it was the best government for decades and better than anything we're likely to get in the years to come. Instead they seem to think it was a disaster. It's a really bizarre way to try to get votes, even at a time when Labour and the Tories are shovelling votes in your direction.
That is a very Conservative way of looking at it.
Not really. The LibDems had been saying for yonks that they wanted a new sort of politics, parties working together, that the sum would be better than the parts, that they didn't like governments to be formed with the support of only 35% or 40% of the electorate etc etc. That was the LibDem pitch, not the Conservative one. So, having finally got what they wanted after many decades, wouldn't you expect them to be pleased and positive about it?
Again that is a very Conservative way of looking at it.
I agree with your first part. I disagree with "having finally got what they wanted after many decades". They were utterly unprepared once the election result (not such a surprising one) was know and were steam-rollered by the Conservatives. They did not get much credit for the progressive policies they did get through (10K income tax threshold) and took "collective responsibility" for the tory policies on the chin (austerity and the 9K student fees).
They have every reason to be sheepish about their coaltion years. Not for their motivation in forming a coalition but for their performance.
Amazing this is dismissed as hypothetical, when leave won three years ago, while the actual hypothetical is "eminently possible"!!!
I wasn't dismissing anything. Just pointing out that there is non trivial possibility that Labour win a pre-Brexit election, hold a 2nd referendum which Remain wins, and as a consequence Brexit is cancelled - in which case the debate around what kind of post-Brexit policies our governments pursue becomes a hypothetical one. Statement of cold hard fact, that is.
But my main point is that if Brexit does happen, and these post-Brexit policies end up being of the centrist sort that could just as easily have been implemented as an EU member, then it could well be argued that leaving had proved a monumental waste of time and money and energy.
FWIW, I think the Cons and DUP should have supported their government and voted Brexit through. The 2016 referendum was a clear instruction to leave.
It would be hard for a centrist govt who committed to reducing immigration to the tens of thousands to hide behind EU regulations when they increased it to record levels
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
Again that is a very Conservative way of looking at it.
I agree with your first part. I disagree with "having finally got what they wanted after many decades". They were utterly unprepared once the election result (not such a surprising one) was know and were steam-rollered by the Conservatives. They did not get much credit for the progressive policies they did get through (10K income tax threshold) and took "collective responsibility" for the tory policies on the chin (austerity and the 9K student fees).
They have every reason to be sheepish about their coaltion years. Not for their motivation in forming a coalition but for their performance.
They didn't get credit for their contributions because they didn't celebrate them. They went around looking thoroughly miserable and saying how awful their coalition partners were. Unsurprisingly, that made voters think 'then why the hell are you in coalition with them?'.
As for not being prepared for coalition, well, quite. Not being prepared for what you've been striving for for half a century is, shall we say, somewhat careless, especially given the polling after the Cleggasm.
An interesting positive straw in the wind for the Roryites hoping he'll make the 33 threshold has been the slow or lack of further endorsements for the second ballot of his rivals.
Gove and Rabb have added one and Javid and Hunt none. Stewart has added four and he significantly outperformed his declared backers last time. He needs to do so again to progress.
I was unimpressed by Hancock endorsing Johnson. Ambition is fine but this smacks of naked careerism. Perhaps that is why they get on, CTTOI.
Again that is a very Conservative way of looking at it.
I agree with your first part. I disagree with "having finally got what they wanted after many decades". They were utterly unprepared once the election result (not such a surprising one) was know and were steam-rollered by the Conservatives. They did not get much credit for the progressive policies they did get through (10K income tax threshold) and took "collective responsibility" for the tory policies on the chin (austerity and the 9K student fees).
They have every reason to be sheepish about their coaltion years. Not for their motivation in forming a coalition but for their performance.
They didn't get credit for their contributions because they didn't celebrate them. The went around looking thoroughly miserable and saying how awful their coalition partners were. Unsurprisingly, that made voters think 'then why the hell are you in coalition with them?'.
As for not being prepared for coalition, well, quite. Not being prepared for what you've been striving for for half a century is, shall we say, somewhat careless, especially given the polling after the Cleggasm.
They didn't get through the parts of their legislative agenda they cared about most, and their vote was dedicated. Why wouldn't they be unhappy?
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
...and he wants to kill old people!
Well at least it's a distinctive policy!
Fiscally sound as well.
I hear the policy is that you get 15 years after your state pension age, and that's your lot. It should sort out the WASPI problem as well.
I'll add my thanks to Dr Fox for the update and good to see @Icarus still with us,
I still haven't decided - there is the veritable cigarette paper between Jo and Ed on most issues. Both are tainted by the Coalition as some would see it but in a Party where three quarters of the membership joined after 2015 that doesn't have the resonance it seems to so with some (and notably the anti-LDs) on here.
Choosing Ed would mean the three parties would all be led by London MPs which sends a message of sorts to the rest of the UK and while that's not a good reason for choosing Jo it wouldn't be a bad reason.
Likewise, I'm an undecided voter looking for a killer reason to go for one or the other. Would be happy with either.
I'd assumed I'd support Jo; great communicator, passionate speaker and she seems ready after a gaffe-free stint as deputy.
Jo won a seat that should never have been Lib Dem; Ed won a more natural seat but with naff all central support. Both impressive achievements, and I admire their sticking power to come back from 2015. However it does seem that Lib Dem priorities have changed from simply "get noticed" which it's been since 2015. Not yet ready to form a Government but I'm now thinking more seriously about policy, who could build alliances and negotiate deals if needed.
Still leaning Jo, I simply think that she can take opponents apart more easily. She sliced Barry Gardiner into pieces on the local election results show this year and I've no doubt she could do the same to Corbyn. My main fear was that she'd turn the Lib Dems into the 'gender neutral bathroom' party which would be a big turn off for me - but she seems rooted in Brexit, green economy and anticipating tech changes to the workplace which seem the right priorities. I can't see Ed having quite the same impact against opponents, does he have the star quality that is needed in a Lib Dem leader? Is he Jeremy Hunt to Swinson's Rory Stewart?
But Ed is having a stronger leadership campaign than I'd anticipated. Still 60:40 for Jo but that's closer than it was a fortnight ago.
I disagree re- Swinson's performance on the Local Election results programme. Thought she was very unimpressive and lightweight - indeed more so than Tim Farron.
I think Swinson is always unimpressive and don't get the hype about her at all
Sadly it is mostly desperation to break the duck of female leadership (which they'll be happy to dump on Labour) and hoping for the best.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
...and he wants to kill old people!
Well at least it's a distinctive policy!
Fiscally sound as well.
I hear the policy is that you get 15 years after your state pension age, and that's your lot. It should sort out the WASPI problem as well.
Engineering a Remain bias for the second referendum to boot
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
...and he wants to kill old people!
Well at least it's a distinctive policy!
Fiscally sound as well.
I hear the policy is that you get 15 years after your state pension age, and that's your lot. It should sort out the WASPI problem as well.
Ah yes, the women fighting for inequality with men. You're tempting me now.
An interesting positive straw in the wind for the Roryites hoping he'll make the 33 threshold has been the slow or lack of further endorsements for the second ballot of his rivals.
Gove and Rabb have added one and Javid and Hunt none. Stewart has added four and he significantly outperformed his declared backers last time. He needs to do so again to progress.
I was unimpressed by Hancock endorsing Johnson. Ambition is fine but this smacks of naked careerism. Perhaps that is why they get on, CTTOI.
Not unduly surprised that a politician would be a naked careerist, although with the Rory campaign that would mean he'd be tweeting in the bath !!
Again that is a very Conservative way of looking at it.
I agree with your first part. I disagree with "having finally got what they wanted after many decades". They were utterly unprepared once the election result (not such a surprising one) was know and were steam-rollered by the Conservatives. They did not get much credit for the progressive policies they did get through (10K income tax threshold) and took "collective responsibility" for the tory policies on the chin (austerity and the 9K student fees).
They have every reason to be sheepish about their coaltion years. Not for their motivation in forming a coalition but for their performance.
They didn't get credit for their contributions because they didn't celebrate them. They went around looking thoroughly miserable and saying how awful their coalition partners were. Unsurprisingly, that made voters think 'then why the hell are you in coalition with them?'.
As for not being prepared for coalition, well, quite. Not being prepared for what you've been striving for for half a century is, shall we say, somewhat careless, especially given the polling after the Cleggasm.
As I said, the good faith disappeared after Cammo's treachery on AV. That Cammo's EU deal was subsequently lost to equally ludicrous propaganda about the NHS was karma
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
...and he wants to kill old people!
Well at least it's a distinctive policy!
Fiscally sound as well.
I hear the policy is that you get 15 years after your state pension age, and that's your lot. It should sort out the WASPI problem as well.
I don't know why you think Ed Davey is such a positive force for "being involved in Government" and Jo Swinson isn't but that's your view to which you are entitled.
Jo served in the Coalition Government as well but "being involved in Government" next time won't be the same. I merely point out the lessons of the 2010-15 experience haven't been lost on the LDs. If of course you see the LD role as simply being there to prop up Conservative Government ad infinitum you are going to be disappointed and perhaps a prolonged spell in Opposition may be no bad thing as your Party looks tired, divided and lacking in any kind of meaningful direction.
The LibDems have drawn the wrong lessons from the coalition experience. They should celebrate it - which shouldn't be hard, given that it was the best government for decades and better than anything we're likely to get in the years to come. Instead they seem to think it was a disaster. It's a really bizarre way to try to get votes, even at a time when Labour and the Tories are shovelling votes in your direction.
The Tories have drawn the wrong lesson, seeing it and their partners as something to be killed off. If the Tories had celebrated it, we and they might all be in a much better position right now
Had the Tories agreed to not stand against the Lib Dems in their seats, do you think the Lib Dems would have agreed to an In/Out referendum were the coalition to be returned to power?
Neither side would have wanted an electoral pact. Nevertheless only Cameron really saw the historic opportunity the coalition presented the Tories, and he threw it away and broke his promise to Clegg by fighting the AV referendum in a cynical, negative and highly personal way.
It is remarkable that it never occurred to Cammo that he might lose his own referendum to similarly dishonest tactics.
Not that I'm Cameron and Osborne's biggest fan, but that AV referendum was incidental to what happened in 2015. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, simply going into coalition with the Tories cost them the NOTA vote, and I suspect the Scotland issue tempted some swing voters into backing the Tories.
You say unicorn I say normality. I used to live in Australia and have family in Canada. I compare us to them and say we should be like them. Independent nations with an FTA. What is unicorn about that?
You put a 'good deal' first. You don't think May's deal is a good deal - in fact you think it's a 'bad deal'.
The unicorn is that you apparently believe a 'good deal' is achievable when it clearly is not - especially in just a few months. That means that if you were honest 'good deal' isn't available, and you really want:
It would be hard for a centrist govt who committed to reducing immigration to the tens of thousands to hide behind EU regulations when they increased it to record levels
Indeed. But a UK government that really does implement stringent immigration controls - as opposed to just mouthing platitudes - will by definition not be a centrist one.
This is my point.
If we invest all of this time and resource into leaving the EU and then do NOT veer strongly either Right or Left, the whole undertaking will have failed the cost/benefit test by a large margin. Win our 'freedom' and then don't use it. Do the same old stuff but with inferior trade terms and a consequently smaller economy. Don't remember that on a bus or anywhere else.
An interesting positive straw in the wind for the Roryites hoping he'll make the 33 threshold has been the slow or lack of further endorsements for the second ballot of his rivals.
Gove and Rabb have added one and Javid and Hunt none. Stewart has added four and he significantly outperformed his declared backers last time. He needs to do so again to progress.
Yes, I think he'll probably make the 33.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Hunt probably looked the most prime ministerial in the debate, even if Rory was more interesting.
Thanks. An informative header. I'm immediately prejudiced against Sir Ed Davey because of his acceptance of a poltical honour. It tells you rather more about the person's character than anything he might have done as an MP. John Redwood and Bill Cash's recent honours havent helped but I note Tony Blair whose achievments eclipse all of them is still plain 'Tony'.
Indeed. Tony wanted to focus his talents on making money for himself and his family
Nothing wrong by with that, but he thought that public service in the Lords would restrict his ability to do so.
And would oblige him to identify his clients...
Wr're talking knighthood not HEREDITARY baronetcies like the Thatchers
I agree with Roger that Sir Ed Davey has a bad ring to it. Can’t think of what he actually did to deserve it.
Didn't various lds essentially get gongs as an apology for getting turfed out despite being loyal coalition members?
Meanwhile the top dawg of snowflakey, right wing victimhood is at it again.
Guy is beyond the pale. Promoting the overtly racist UK far right again the other day, I note. Amazeballs (in a bad way) that so many shrug it off.
Just has to be beaten in 2020. Do not care who by. Far more important to me that Trump is ousted than to see Labour win here, or to see a No Deal Brexit thwarted - and those are both things I am very very keen on, trust me.
Meandering through the 1st ballot numbers, subsequent exits and recent events I wonder whether by second ballot announcement tomorrow we may be left with only two candidates and the non Boris candidate so weakened as to withdraw and effectively end up with another coronation.
Scenario - Javid, Rabb, Stewart and Gove all fail to pass the 33 vote hurdle. Hunt barely improves and Boris is streets ahead :
It would be hard for a centrist govt who committed to reducing immigration to the tens of thousands to hide behind EU regulations when they increased it to record levels
Indeed. But a UK government that really does implement stringent immigration controls - as opposed to just mouthing platitudes - will by definition not be a centrist one.
This is my point.
If we invest all of this time and resource into leaving the EU and then do NOT veer strongly either Right or Left, the whole undertaking will have failed the cost/benefit test by a large margin. Win our 'freedom' and then don't use it. Do the same old stuff but with inferior trade terms and a consequently smaller economy. Don't remember that on a bus or anywhere else.
Well that depends on your definition of "centrist". I think it's about 70% of the population that supports stronger immigration controls. That's the centre-ground of British politics right there.
You and I might not like it, but pretending it hasn't happened isn't going to win the argument with voters to change minds and move the centre ground to a position that supports immigration.
A lot of the current talk about "centrism" sounds like a way to define what is right and proper without having to go to the effort of winning the political debate for people to support that. Extremes are bad, centrism is good, now listen to what I tell you centrism is.
Thanks. An informative header. I'm immediately prejudiced against Sir Ed Davey because of his acceptance of a poltical honour. It tells you rather more about the person's character than anything he might have done as an MP. John Redwood and Bill Cash's recent honours havent helped but I note Tony Blair whose achievments eclipse all of them is still plain 'Tony'.
Indeed. Tony wanted to focus his talents on making money for himself and his family
Nothing wrong by with that, but he thought that public service in the Lords would restrict his ability to do so.
And would oblige him to identify his clients...
Wr're talking knighthood not HEREDITARY baronetcies like the Thatchers
I agree with Roger that Sir Ed Davey has a bad ring to it. Can’t think of what he actually did to deserve it.
Didn't various lds essentially get gongs as an apology for getting turfed out despite being loyal coalition members?
The innovative 3 part Faustian pact deal: ministerial cars and a sniff of power>reputation fcucked>gong
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
...and he wants to kill old people!
Well at least it's a distinctive policy!
Anything is better than our current policy - which is essentially to torture many old people for years as they live in pain and misery before they die. Often medical often social isolation - often both.
Frankly we treat our dogs and horses more humanely than our elderly. Why not let elderly people choose how their own life ends - not doctors, lawyers, moralisers and politicians.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
...and he wants to kill old people!
Well at least it's a distinctive policy!
Fiscally sound as well.
I hear the policy is that you get 15 years after your state pension age, and that's your lot. It should sort out the WASPI problem as well.
Don't forget, Hunt was Health Secretary for quite some time, and never adequately solved the bed blocker problem...
It really is pathetic to see Priti, Esther and The Truss jostling to become Bozo's cabinet fluffer.
Especially when Gavin Williamson seems to have the gig sown up.
I think you may be mistaken about who is getting fluffed in the new regime. The re-emergence of Williamson as a significant player is not an ideal development in my view.
I'd certainly like to see Stewart in the next round. He's shaken the race up and taken other candidates out of their comfort zone.
What I thought was instructive last night was the reaction of the other candidates. They couldn't understand why Stewart wasn't following normal debate tactics and were off balance as he poured forth and took the audience with him. Hunt eventually realized this and improved through the debate.
On Hunt I've been surprised by his lack of traction. Low first round total, indifferent campaign and little momentum.
Yes, Hunt has been a disappointment. Like Boris he's trying to be all things to all men, with the difference that he's a little more realistic. He hasn't really made the case for being more realistic, though.
I'll add my thanks to Dr Fox for the update and good to see @Icarus still with us,
I still haven't decided - there is the veritable cigarette paper between Jo and Ed on most issues. Both are tainted by the Coalition as some would see it but in a Party where three quarters of the membership joined after 2015 that doesn't have the resonance it seems to so with some (and notably the anti-LDs) on here.
Choosing Ed would mean the three parties would all be led by London MPs which sends a message of sorts to the rest of the UK and while that's not a good reason for choosing Jo it wouldn't be a bad reason.
Likewise, I'm an undecided voter looking for a killer reason to go for one or the other. Would be happy with either.
I'd assumed I'd support Jo; great communicator, passionate speaker and she seems ready after a gaffe-free stint as deputy.
Jo won a seat that should never have been Lib Dem; Ed won a more natural seat but with naff all central support. Both impressive achievements, and I admire their sticking power to come back from 2015. However it does seem that Lib Dem priorities have changed from simply "get noticed" which it's been since 2015. Not yet ready to form a Government but I'm now thinking more seriously about policy, who could build alliances and negotiate deals if needed.
Still leaning Jo, I simply think that she can take opponents apart more easily. She sliced Barry Gardiner into pieces on the local election results show this year and I've no doubt she could do the same to Corbyn. My main fear was that she'd turn the Lib Dems into the 'gender neutral bathroom' party which would be a big turn off for me - but she seems rooted in Brexit, green economy and anticipating tech changes to the workplace which seem the right priorities. I can't see Ed having quite the same impact against opponents, does he have the star quality that is needed in a Lib Dem leader? Is he Jeremy Hunt to Swinson's Rory Stewart?
But Ed is having a stronger leadership campaign than I'd anticipated. Still 60:40 for Jo but that's closer than it was a fortnight ago.
I disagree re- Swinson's performance on the Local Election results programme. Thought she was very unimpressive and lightweight - indeed more so than Tim Farron.
I think Swinson is always unimpressive and don't get the hype about her at all
Well that depends on your definition of "centrist". I think it's about 70% of the population that supports stronger immigration controls. That's the centre-ground of British politics right there.
You and I might not like it, but pretending it hasn't happened isn't going to win the argument with voters to change minds and move the centre ground to a position that supports immigration.
A lot of the current talk about "centrism" sounds like a way to define what is right and proper without having to go to the effort of winning the political debate for people to support that. Extremes are bad, centrism is good, now listen to what I tell you centrism is.
StrongER, yes, but I was more thinking of a proper crackdown - the sort of thing that would really move the dial on this. In our politics, that is an outlier position.
I agree with your comment on 'centrism'. A much abused term by both proponents and opponents of it.
A fairly good definition of a 'centrist' policy, IMO, is anything that one can implement as a member of the European Union without causing a ruction.
If you can do it in the EU it is most probably centrist.
NB: The reverse does not follow. Something that is verboten to an EU member is not necessarily NOT centrist, i.e. extreme. But it often will be.
I think we could be seeing signs that British politics is going to "normalize" in the 2020's.
Way I see things (possibly) panning out:
1. Boris wins autumn general election and we Brexit.
2. Jezza resigns. Labour elects a more centrist leader.
3. Boris loses 2024 general election.
4. Rory Stewart becomes Con leader.
Suddenly by 2025 we're back Lab and Con being center left and center right parties and the previous ten years seems a bit like Pam's dream in Dallas.
Hard to see how Boris wins a GE. Maybe if Farage goes back on his word and does go for a pact, that could be enough, but even then, Labour will regain almost all of the green party vote and a large chunk of the lib dem vote that they are currently predicted to lose, even if Labour continue to offer equivocation on Brexit. Anyone opposed to a Boris Farage pact will reluctantly vote Labour much like in 2017. SNP likely to clean up again in Scotland removes a chunk of Scot Tory MPs and parliament ends up more hung than before.
If there's no Farage Boris pact then all bets are off, the huge vote split would leave many Remainers feeling more comfortable denying Corbyn their vote, and we could see scenarios playing out like all the recent yougov polls.
Boris wins majority with the latest Yougov and Comres polls, with the Brexit Party vote at least halving in the Tories favour
Swinson might lose her seat at the next election. Sure, her majority is better than Davey's, but I think the way the two seats will play out with Brexit churn will favour Davey and harm Swinson. Namely, The Conservative anti-SNP vote that helped Swinson will migrate back to Conservative and over to the Brexit Party. If the SNP can claw their way back up to 35% in the East Dumbartonshire, it might be enough.
EDIT: in 2017 the Tory vote in E.D. went up, but less than the average Scottish rise: 6% vs 13%.
Boris ducking the C4 debate was understandable, but chickening out of the press gallery hustings does look as though he's terrified of being asked awkward questions.
I would be running a "Boris had withdrawn from the race" campaign if I was a rival
It was broadcast early on Sunday morning, listening to it was an added penance to insomnia. That level of smugness ensured I wouldn't get back to sleep.
One thing that struck me was that it was suggested that Swinson's electoral rejection in 2015 was entirely down to coalition complicity rather than part of the SNP post indy ref tidal wave. I could see a case being made for elements of both being relevant, but odd to entirely ignore the latter.
You say unicorn I say normality. I used to live in Australia and have family in Canada. I compare us to them and say we should be like them. Independent nations with an FTA. What is unicorn about that?
How long did it take for Aus and Canada to negotiate their FTAs? And notice the use of the plural, you need an FTA with each major trading Nation/Block. Without a WA-Brexit the UK will be on WTO tariffs for years.
That's fine so get on with negotiating then. My preffered solution is to have a transition period, but no backstop to it. The backstop is redundant to the transition (it doesn't kick in during transition) and is only for afterwards. Well afterwards should be for the future negotiations.
If that can't be agreed then immediate no deal and there's still no backstop. But offer the olive branch of a backstopless transition and we pay the billions they want once they drop the backstop.
I think we could be seeing signs that British politics is going to "normalize" in the 2020's.
Way I see things (possibly) panning out:
1. Boris wins autumn general election and we Brexit.
2. Jezza resigns. Labour elects a more centrist leader.
3. Boris loses 2024 general election.
4. Rory Stewart becomes Con leader.
Suddenly by 2025 we're back Lab and Con being center left and center right parties and the previous ten years seems a bit like Pam's dream in Dallas.
Hard to see how Boris wins a GE. Maybe if Farage goes back on his word and does go for a pact, that could be enough, but even then, Labour will regain almost all of the green party vote and a large chunk of the lib dem vote that they are currently predicted to lose, even if Labour continue to offer equivocation on Brexit. Anyone opposed to a Boris Farage pact will reluctantly vote Labour much like in 2017. SNP likely to clean up again in Scotland removes a chunk of Scot Tory MPs and parliament ends up more hung than before.
If there's no Farage Boris pact then all bets are off, the huge vote split would leave many Remainers feeling more comfortable denying Corbyn their vote, and we could see scenarios playing out like all the recent yougov polls.
Boris wins majority with the latest Yougov and Comres polls, with the Brexit Party vote at least halving in the Tories favour
I think you really need to be more cautious about these polls.
In a real FPTP election, I think the Tories and Labour are bound to do better than they would indicate. The question is, how much better in each case.
You say unicorn I say normality. I used to live in Australia and have family in Canada. I compare us to them and say we should be like them. Independent nations with an FTA. What is unicorn about that?
Davey looks the more heavyweight of the 2 but both seem C list compared to the A list Chuka and now he has joined the party this leadership contest mainly seeks to be a warm up for his succession
Is that the official Tory line, Mr HY?
If you haven't noticed HYUFD has been Umunna's raa-raa boy for years.
I would not vote for him but I think he is the best potential leader the pro Remain centre left have available, the most telegenic and the most articulate
But he is also arrogant, remote and surrounded by a coterie of sycophants who keep away anyone who dares to question his bountiful wisdom. His relationship with colleagues is prickly and the closer you get to him the less attractive he seems.
Sounds like Macron then and Cameron said Obama was 'a complete narcissist' after they first met, though to be fair Obama had said he was 'a lightweight' though they got on better afterwards
You say unicorn I say normality. I used to live in Australia and have family in Canada. I compare us to them and say we should be like them. Independent nations with an FTA. What is unicorn about that?
How do Australia handle their EU land border?
That wasn't actually me - I mucked up the blockquotes. my bit was below that.
You say unicorn I say normality. I used to live in Australia and have family in Canada. I compare us to them and say we should be like them. Independent nations with an FTA. What is unicorn about that?
How do Australia handle their EU land border?
How do Norway? Switzerland? Ukraine? Russia? Albania? Serbia? Montenegro? Or many other examples.
If the EU won't give us a deal that is how we should handle it. Simples.
I think we could be seeing signs that British politics is going to "normalize" in the 2020's.
Way I see things (possibly) panning out:
1. Boris wins autumn general election and we Brexit.
2. Jezza resigns. Labour elects a more centrist leader.
3. Boris loses 2024 general election.
4. Rory Stewart becomes Con leader.
Suddenly by 2025 we're back Lab and Con being center left and center right parties and the previous ten years seems a bit like Pam's dream in Dallas.
Sounds plausible but the Labour party is so dominated by Momentum and Corbynistas now I think the centrist leader in 2 will have to come from the LDs or another new party successor to CUK.
It should be noted though that most parties that lose power elect a more left or right wing leader respectively e.g. Hague beat Clarke in 1997, Ed Miliband beat David Miliband in 2010, Foot beat Healey in 1980, Thatcher beat Heath in 1975 etc. So Stewart probably needs to wait a bit if he does not win this time
I think it's about 70% of the population that supports stronger immigration controls.
Supporting immigration controls that are stronger than... what exists in their imaginations.
Trouble is, the great unwashed have totally unrealistic ideas of how many people in this country are from abroad. Ordinary voters know fuck all about what's really going on, they think that the stories told by Farage are somehow representative of reality, instead of scumbag lies told by scumbag liars.
It takes two to tango. If the EU wants a deal then they should give us one we want. If they don't, so be it, that is their choice and NI gets a hard border because they don't budge.
It would be hard for a centrist govt who committed to reducing immigration to the tens of thousands to hide behind EU regulations when they increased it to record levels
Indeed. But a UK government that really does implement stringent immigration controls - as opposed to just mouthing platitudes - will by definition not be a centrist one.
This is my point.
If we invest all of this time and resource into leaving the EU and then do NOT veer strongly either Right or Left, the whole undertaking will have failed the cost/benefit test by a large margin. Win our 'freedom' and then don't use it. Do the same old stuff but with inferior trade terms and a consequently smaller economy. Don't remember that on a bus or anywhere else.
Well that depends on your definition of "centrist". I think it's about 70% of the population that supports stronger immigration controls. That's the centre-ground of British politics right there.
You and I might not like it, but pretending it hasn't happened isn't going to win the argument with voters to change minds and move the centre ground to a position that supports immigration.
A lot of the current talk about "centrism" sounds like a way to define what is right and proper without having to go to the effort of winning the political debate for people to support that. Extremes are bad, centrism is good, now listen to what I tell you centrism is.
Yes, exactly. ‘Centrism’ as currently defined by Centrists is actually what the vast majority of people call ‘elitism’
You say unicorn I say normality. I used to live in Australia and have family in Canada. I compare us to them and say we should be like them. Independent nations with an FTA. What is unicorn about that?
How do Australia handle their EU land border?
How do Norway? Switzerland? Ukraine? Russia? Albania? Serbia? Montenegro? Or many other examples.
If the EU won't give us a deal that is how we should handle it. Simples.
Border controls, but that's not compatible with the promises the Leave campaign made, as it potentially kicks the civil war off again. Also in the first two of those cases, following EU regulations, but that's not compatible with the current requirements of the people who campaigned for Leave, and potentially kicks the Conservative Party civil war off again.
It takes two to tango. If the EU wants a deal then they should give us one we want. If they don't, so be it, that is their choice and NI gets a hard border because they don't budge.
There isn't any deal that "we" want. We don't want to be in the EU, and we don't want any of the alternatives. How the fuck can the EU give us something "we" want when "we" don't even know?
You say unicorn I say normality. I used to live in Australia and have family in Canada. I compare us to them and say we should be like them. Independent nations with an FTA. What is unicorn about that?
How do Australia handle their EU land border?
How do Norway? Switzerland? Ukraine? Russia? Albania? Serbia? Montenegro? Or many other examples.
If the EU won't give us a deal that is how we should handle it. Simples.
The idea that the road from Belfast to Dublin is going to become the smugglers route of choice to getting shoddy products in to the otherwise watertight single market is really quite amusing.
Betfair spread on Sanders (8.4 / 23) gone a bit crazy. Warren now 6.2 / 6.6.
Persistence clearly pays off.
It was a month or so ago that I was being assured that the eventual nominee would almost certainly be one of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke or Kamala Harris. Now two of the three shortest priced candidates are from outside that gang of four. We haven't had the first debates yet, either.
It takes two to tango. If the EU wants a deal then they should give us one we want. If they don't, so be it, that is their choice and NI gets a hard border because they don't budge.
There isn't any deal that "we" want. We don't want to be in the EU, and we don't want any of the alternatives. How the fuck can the EU give us something "we" want when "we" don't even know?
It takes two to tango. If the EU wants a deal then they should give us one we want. If they don't, so be it, that is their choice and NI gets a hard border because they don't budge.
There isn't any deal that "we" want. We don't want to be in the EU, and we don't want any of the alternatives. How the fuck can the EU give us something "we" want when "we" don't even know?
The 17.4 million voters weren't ignored, three years have been devoted to giving them Brexit whilst trying not to damage the country too much. It's the 16.1 million that have been ignored.
It takes two to tango. If the EU wants a deal then they should give us one we want. If they don't, so be it, that is their choice and NI gets a hard border because they don't budge.
The endless argument of the moron. "We don't need a hard border - technology will fix it. No I can't tell you what that technology is. No we can't wait for the technology to actually exist just get on with it. No that doesn't mean a hard border. If that does mean a hard border its their fault."
We know how the world works. We know how the EU works and how the UK works. We cannot decide to leave the EU to better control our border, then solve the issue of an open land border with some techno-thriller fantasy solution.
As for its their fault" that is the basic problem. Never mind the absurd suggestion that defaulting on our deal with the EU will allow us to do better deals with other countries (who presumably would definitely be able to trust the UK not to default on the deal). Its the idea that having left the EU in a way that imposes a physical border AND defaulted on the EU that the US would then do a brilliant trade deal with us.
They cannot be clearer in Congress. No deal if we screw Ireland.
You can sit and whine about blame. It would be our fault. Our doing. And our loss when the rest of the world treats us like a trade leper.
Seriously, how fucking stupid are some people? You want to know why Boris is leading and why most of the others are promising they have a huge set of balls that will magically make the EU change its mind? Its in posts like the above - they do so knowing their target electorate are morons.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWdRE0XyecA
But my main point is that if Brexit does happen, and these post-Brexit policies end up being of the centrist sort that could just as easily have been implemented as an EU member, then it could well be argued that leaving had proved a monumental waste of time and money and energy.
FWIW, I think the Cons and DUP should have supported their government and voted Brexit through. The 2016 referendum was a clear instruction to leave.
https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/1140440538266648576
It is remarkable that it never occurred to Cammo that he might lose his own referendum to similarly dishonest tactics.
The one policy that the Lib Dems won from the Coalition that the Tories weren't happy about was electoral reform, and they botched that by having it contingent on a referendum which they then lost.
Next time they would need to have some clear wins so that they could say to the electorate: You voted for us and in return you received these things, a, b and c, that you like that they didn't want you to have. Vote for us again and we'll force them to give you x, y and z and protect a, b and c.
I agree with your first part. I disagree with "having finally got what they wanted after many decades". They were utterly unprepared once the election result (not such a surprising one) was know and were steam-rollered by the Conservatives. They did not get much credit for the progressive policies they did get through (10K income tax threshold) and took "collective responsibility" for the tory policies on the chin (austerity and the 9K student fees).
They have every reason to be sheepish about their coaltion years. Not for their motivation in forming a coalition but for their performance.
As for not being prepared for coalition, well, quite. Not being prepared for what you've been striving for for half a century is, shall we say, somewhat careless, especially given the polling after the Cleggasm.
You put a 'good deal' first. You don't think May's deal is a good deal - in fact you think it's a 'bad deal'.
The unicorn is that you apparently believe a 'good deal' is achievable when it clearly is not - especially in just a few months. That means that if you were honest 'good deal' isn't available, and you really want:
No deal > Remain > Bad deal
You are a no dealer.
This is my point.
If we invest all of this time and resource into leaving the EU and then do NOT veer strongly either Right or Left, the whole undertaking will have failed the cost/benefit test by a large margin. Win our 'freedom' and then don't use it. Do the same old stuff but with inferior trade terms and a consequently smaller economy. Don't remember that on a bus or anywhere else.
Just has to be beaten in 2020. Do not care who by. Far more important to me that Trump is ousted than to see Labour win here, or to see a No Deal Brexit thwarted - and those are both things I am very very keen on, trust me.
I'm pretty red on Stewart but will be reviewing my position after the 2nd vote.
If he doesn't make it, I won't have to, but I suspect he probably will.
You and I might not like it, but pretending it hasn't happened isn't going to win the argument with voters to change minds and move the centre ground to a position that supports immigration.
A lot of the current talk about "centrism" sounds like a way to define what is right and proper without having to go to the effort of winning the political debate for people to support that. Extremes are bad, centrism is good, now listen to what I tell you centrism is.
ministerial cars and a sniff of power>reputation fcucked>gong
Especially when Gavin Williamson seems to have the gig sown up.
Frankly we treat our dogs and horses more humanely than our elderly. Why not let elderly people choose how their own life ends - not doctors, lawyers, moralisers and politicians.
Yes, because thats the 'only' issue with NI....
God help us..
I agree with your comment on 'centrism'. A much abused term by both proponents and opponents of it.
A fairly good definition of a 'centrist' policy, IMO, is anything that one can implement as a member of the European Union without causing a ruction.
If you can do it in the EU it is most probably centrist.
NB: The reverse does not follow. Something that is verboten to an EU member is not necessarily NOT centrist, i.e. extreme. But it often will be.
EDIT: in 2017 the Tory vote in E.D. went up, but less than the average Scottish rise: 6% vs 13%.
But in terms of percentages they're both very small, and the difference is only 3-4 points.
I wouldn't bet on it, because it depends on evaluating just how mad the Tory party has become. In the words of Ted Heath, I am not a doctor.
Thankfully, there is talent of the required gender available.
One thing that struck me was that it was suggested that Swinson's electoral rejection in 2015 was entirely down to coalition complicity rather than part of the SNP post indy ref tidal wave. I could see a case being made for elements of both being relevant, but odd to entirely ignore the latter.
If that can't be agreed then immediate no deal and there's still no backstop. But offer the olive branch of a backstopless transition and we pay the billions they want once they drop the backstop.
In a real FPTP election, I think the Tories and Labour are bound to do better than they would indicate. The question is, how much better in each case.
Non-voters don't count for either side.
Sorry.
If the EU won't give us a deal that is how we should handle it. Simples.
It should be noted though that most parties that lose power elect a more left or right wing leader respectively e.g. Hague beat Clarke in 1997, Ed Miliband beat David Miliband in 2010, Foot beat Healey in 1980, Thatcher beat Heath in 1975 etc. So Stewart probably needs to wait a bit if he does not win this time
Trouble is, the great unwashed have totally unrealistic ideas of how many people in this country are from abroad. Ordinary voters know fuck all about what's really going on, they think that the stories told by Farage are somehow representative of reality, instead of scumbag lies told by scumbag liars.
It takes two to tango. If the EU wants a deal then they should give us one we want. If they don't, so be it, that is their choice and NI gets a hard border because they don't budge.
It's correct that 46 million DIDN'T
That doesn't mean they voted for an alternative - that's what 16.14 million people did
#Brexithickie
Warren now 6.2 / 6.6.
Persistence clearly pays off.
It is the 'naked' bit that I object to. But if we have to have it, yes, let's have the actual variety.
https://twitter.com/IanLaveryMP/status/1140555296076681216?s=20
But there is a big difference between that and winning.
1/0 was OK. 2/0 becomes an embarrassment if unanswered with one back.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1140565931984334848?s=20
People vote, we count the votes. Anyone who doesn't vote doesn't matter.
We know how the world works. We know how the EU works and how the UK works. We cannot decide to leave the EU to better control our border, then solve the issue of an open land border with some techno-thriller fantasy solution.
As for its their fault" that is the basic problem. Never mind the absurd suggestion that defaulting on our deal with the EU will allow us to do better deals with other countries (who presumably would definitely be able to trust the UK not to default on the deal). Its the idea that having left the EU in a way that imposes a physical border AND defaulted on the EU that the US would then do a brilliant trade deal with us.
They cannot be clearer in Congress. No deal if we screw Ireland.
You can sit and whine about blame. It would be our fault. Our doing. And our loss when the rest of the world treats us like a trade leper.
Seriously, how fucking stupid are some people? You want to know why Boris is leading and why most of the others are promising they have a huge set of balls that will magically make the EU change its mind? Its in posts like the above - they do so knowing their target electorate are morons.