a) What you not get? b) You are doing an HYFD here 'Would have won'? You just don't know that.
It isn’t a seat that Labour can win. Which isn’t to say Labour can’t come second - and they have.
But the probability of being able to win a seat and the probability of being in second place aren’t as closely correlated as you might think.
It is a seat the LibDems could win - as demonstrated by the balance of votes in both this year’s local and Euro elections. But it will depend on Labour voters seeing where the new land lies.
With respect , given that Labour was within 5,000 votes of JRM in 2010 - despite the Libdem Cleggmania boost - there is a strong likelihood that Labour would have won there in 2005.
That is a worthless statement given where we are now.
rent environment where both Tory and Labour are seeing half of their vote share disappear and minor parties are surging from single digit percentages up to 20+% of the vote.
I don't expect that the vote share will be split four ways - and will be surprised if the combined Tory and Labour share fails to reach 65% as happened in 2010 and 2015.Post the EU election I did suggest that the Brexit Party share would fall below 20% by the end of the Summer. Despite being ridiculed by a few on here, that appears to have already happened. The LibDem vote is likely to follow a similar trajectory as an election draws near.
Lets try this, if you are right on LD vote share around 15% or less, then you are right on north east somerset, and Lab will finish second there unless they have a landslide nationwide win, in which case they might challenge for it.
If you are wrong and it is a three-four way split nationally, the party most likely to beat the tories is the LDs.
Let’s take the recent YouGov poll, but tweak it slightly so that both Labour and LibDem are equal on 21%, with the Tories on 25%, BXP on 18% and Greens on 8%.
Feed the result into Flavible’s model, and their prediction for NE Somerset is:
Tory 30.7% LibDem 27.6% Labour 16.1% BXP 15.7%
With any sort of result close to that, it is obvious that the outcome in the seat depends on Labour voters’ willingness to vote tactically for the LibDems.
Labour won the seat in 1997, 2001 and 2005 when they winning general elections nationally. They're probably not going to give up there in favour of the LDs.
This morning's performance by Johnson was extraordinary.
He was so excited, fast talking, full of positive bonhomie that he could have been on E. And it was contagious on the Tory side. They were all so excited. All that was missing was the house music and smiley faces.
On the other side, the sourpuss gloomster realists were not impressed at all by this display.
The Tories will now go away high and happy. The let down when reality bites will be cruel
Mrs May was being hailed as the reincarnation of Mrs T after her first Parliamentary outing as PM too. It didn’t last. Governing the country requires more than reading out a best of compilation of your columns.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
As for the call with Juncker this afternoon, I actually expect Boris to win some concessions which he will shout from the rooftops. What he won't be so willing to talk about will be the concessions he will make - additional financial contributions which will be masked under "other liabilities" perhaps.
There won't be any substantive content to the call. Juncker will congratulate Boris and invite him to Brussels, emphasising that the EU position hasn't changed and saying that they look forward to hearing what the new government proposes.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
The Left really have developed an Eeyore complex, haven't you?
a) What you not get? b) You are doing an HYFD here 'Would have won'? You just don't know that.
It is a seat the LibDems could win - as demonstrated by the balance of votes in both this year’s local and Euro elections. But it will depend on Labour voters seeing where the new land lies.
With respect , given that Labour was within 5,000 votes of JRM in 2010 - despite the Libdem Cleggmania boost - there is a strong likelihood that Labour would have won there in 2005.
That is a worthless statement given where we are now.
You have to make the assumption that the vote share is now split four ways - and I fully recognise that other arguments and scenarios are available, as a I said below.
But once you pass this assumption, it is a nonsense to apply the thinking and models developed in a world of small percentage swings between two large parties to the current environment where both Tory and Labour are seeing half of their vote share disappear and minor parties are surging from single digit percentages up to 20+% of the vote.
I don't expect that the vote share will be split four ways - and will be surprised if the combined Tory and Labour share fails to reach 65% as happened in 2010 and 2015.Post the EU election I did suggest that the Brexit Party share would fall below 20% by the end of the Summer. Despite being ridiculed by a few on here, that appears to have already happened. The LibDem vote is likely to follow a similar trajectory as an election draws near.
Lets try this, if you are right on LD vote share around 15% or less, then you are right on north east somerset, and Lab will finish second there unless they have a landslide nationwide win, in which case they might challenge for it.
If you are wrong and it is a three-four way split nationally, the party most likely to beat the tories is the LDs.
Let’s take the recent YouGov poll, but tweak it slightly so that both Labour and LibDem are equal on 21%, with the Tories on 25%, BXP on 18% and Greens on 8%.
Feed the result into Flavible’s model, and their prediction for NE Somerset is:
Tory 30.7% LibDem 27.6% Labour 16.1% BXP 15.7%
With any sort of result close to that, it is obvious that the outcome in the seat depends on Labour voters’ willingness to vote tactically for the LibDems.
I am increasingly confident that no matter what parties say, the people will vote tactically as they did in 2005.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
The Left really have developed an Eeyore complex, haven't you?
Not seeing Boris as the Messiah is Eeyorish? Count a lot not on the Left in too.
I see Watson has waved goodbye to Northern Ireland with his pride in "Britain", not the UK......
Northern Irish unionists would generally consider themselves British, which is the word Watson uses.
The term "British Isles" is less used these days due to Irish sensitivities, and nationalists and those in the Republic of Ireland understandably wouldn't identify themselves as British. But, as a geographical fact, Ireland is one of the British Isles and those there have every bit as much right to call themselves British as those on the Isle of Wight (or not - up to them). Great Britain is simply the largest of the British Isles.
Legally and politically, the United Kingdom is an entity. Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland, legally and politically.
Yes, but geographically the British Isles include the island of Ireland, and in fact those people who live there and want to be part of the United Kingdom use the term British to apply to themselves (as well as other terms).
Are you calling Titchmarsh a nobody? How. Dare. You.
It's in pretty common usage, you'll find. Not as common as it was due to the sensitivities over the Republic of Ireland, but a hell of a lot more than the PC term "Atlantic Archipelago".
And I also come back to my point that unionists in Northern Ireland are perfectly happy with the term "British" as applying to them, so your suggestion that Watson was excluding them by using it is nonsense.
McDonald's use "British and Irish farmers" in their ads.
Because those from the Republic and Catholics in NI would object to being called British. NI Unionists don't.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
We do still need to find a replacement term that has fewer syllables than the Atlantic Archipelago. I quite like Iona (Islands Of the North Atlantic), though perhaps you would have to say Greater Iona to distinguish from the Scottish island of the same name.
a) What you not get? b) You are doing an HYFD here 'Would have won'? You just don't know that.
It isn’t a seat that Labour can win. Which isn’t to say Labour can’t come second - and they have.
But the probability of being able to win a seat and the probability of being in second place aren’t as closely correlated as you might think.
It is a seat the LibDems could win - as demonstrated by the balance of votes in both this year’s local and Euro elections. But it will depend on Labour voters seeing where the new land lies.
With respect , given that Labour was within 5,000 votes of JRM in 2010 - despite the Libdem Cleggmania boost - there is a strong likelihood that Labour would have won there in 2005.
That is a worthless statement given where we are now.
rent environment where both Tory and Labour are seeing half of their vote share disappear and minor parties are surging from single digit percentages up to 20+% of the vote.
I don't expect that the vote share will be split four ways - and will be surprised if the combined Tory and Labour share fails to reach 65% as happened in 2010 and 2015.Post the EU election I did suggest that the Brexit Party share would fall below 20% by the end of the Summer. Despite being ridiculed by a few on here, that appears to have already happened. The LibDem vote is likely to follow a similar trajectory as an election draws near.
Lets try this, if you are right on LD vote share around 15% or less, then you are right on north east somerset, and Lab will finish second there unless they have a landslide nationwide win, in which case they might challenge for it.
If you are wrong and it is a three-four way split nationally, the party most likely to beat the tories is the LDs.
Let’s take the recent YouGov poll, but tweak it slightly so that both Labour and LibDem are equal on 21%, with the Tories on 25%, BXP on 18% and Greens on 8%.
Feed the result into Flavible’s model, and their prediction for NE Somerset is:
Tory 30.7% LibDem 27.6% Labour 16.1% BXP 15.7%
With any sort of result close to that, it is obvious that the outcome in the seat depends on Labour voters’ willingness to vote tactically for the LibDems.
Labour won the seat in 1997, 2001 and 2005 when they winning general elections nationally. They're probably not going to give up there in favour of the LDs.
One other thought about Boris and you can see this one of two ways.
When he was campaigning to be Mayor, he talked a lot about taking on Bob Crow and the RMT and I thought we would see an engineered showdown between Boris and the RMT and a prolonged dispute which would aim to break the RMT on London Underground but it never happened.
Indeed, Boris bought off the RMT by paying them extra to drive during the Olympics and extra for Boxing Day working and setting the stage for additional payments for night working. Indeed, I heard it said Johnson and Crow actually had quite a good personal relationship despite their ideological differences.
Boris is no fool - he will use carrot if carrot works and he respects men (and women) of power and strength. He and Crow swerved a fight because they both knew they would both be losers. Beating down weaker opponents is easy but Boris is as much coward as bully and will back off those who stand up to him.
One other thought about Boris and you can see this one of two ways.
When he was campaigning to be Mayor, he talked a lot about taking on Bob Crow and the RMT and I thought we would see an engineered showdown between Boris and the RMT and a prolonged dispute which would aim to break the RMT on London Underground but it never happened.
Indeed, Boris bought off the RMT by paying them extra to drive during the Olympics and extra for Boxing Day working and setting the stage for additional payments for night working. Indeed, I heard it said Johnson and Crow actually had quite a good personal relationship despite their ideological differences.
Boris is no fool - he will use carrot if carrot works and he respects men (and women) of power and strength. He and Crow swerved a fight because they both knew they would both be losers. Beating down weaker opponents is easy but Boris is as much coward as bully and will back off those who stand up to him.
a) What you not get? b) You are doing an HYFD here 'Would have won'? You just don't know that.
.
That is a worthless statement given where we are now.
You have to make the assumption that the vote share is now split four ways - and I fully recognise that other arguments and scenarios are available, as a I said below.
But once you pass this assumption, it is a nonsense to apply the thinking and models developed in a world of small percentage swings between two large parties to the current environment where both Tory and Labour are seeing half of their vote share disappear and minor parties are surging from single digit percentages up to 20+% of the vote.
I don't expect that the vote share will be split four ways - and will be surprised if the combined Tory and Labour share fails to reach 65% as happened in 2010 and 2015.Post the EU election I did suggest that the Brexit Party share would fall below 20% by the end of the Summer. Despite being ridiculed by a few on here, that appears to have already happened. The LibDem vote is likely to follow a similar trajectory as an election draws near.
Lets try this, if you are right on LD vote share around 15% or less, then you are right on north east somerset, and Lab will finish second there unless they have a landslide nationwide win, in which case they might challenge for it.
If you are wrong and it is a three-four way split nationally, the party most likely to beat the tories is the LDs.
Let’s take the recent YouGov poll, but tweak it slightly so that both Labour and LibDem are equal on 21%, with the Tories on 25%, BXP on 18% and Greens on 8%.
Feed the result into Flavible’s model, and their prediction for NE Somerset is:
Tory 30.7% LibDem 27.6% Labour 16.1% BXP 15.7%
With any sort of result close to that, it is obvious that the outcome in the seat depends on Labour voters’ willingness to vote tactically for the LibDems.
I am increasingly confident that no matter what parties say, the people will vote tactically as they did in 2005.
Labour will obviously rely on the 2017 results to encourage that.
I see Watson has waved goodbye to Northern Ireland with his pride in "Britain", not the UK......
Northern Irish unionists would generally consider themselves British, which is the word Watson uses.
The term "British Isles" is less used these days due to Irish sensitivities, and nationalists and those in the Republic of Ireland understandably wouldn't identify themselves as British. But, as a geographical fact, Ireland is one of the British Isles and those there have every bit as much right to call themselves British as those on the Isle of Wight (or not - up to them). Great Britain is simply the largest of the British Isles.
Legally and politically, the United Kingdom is an entity. Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland, legally and politically.
Yes, but geographically the British Isles include the island of Ireland, and in fact those people who live there and want to be part of the United Kingdom use the term British to apply to themselves (as well as other terms).
Are you calling Titchmarsh a nobody? How. Dare. You.
It's in pretty common usage, you'll find. Not as common as it was due to the sensitivities over the Republic of Ireland, but a hell of a lot more than the PC term "Atlantic Archipelago".
And I also come back to my point that unionists in Northern Ireland are perfectly happy with the term "British" as applying to them, so your suggestion that Watson was excluding them by using it is nonsense.
McDonald's use "British and Irish farmers" in their ads.
Because those from the Republic and Catholics in NI would object to being called British. NI Unionists don't.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
Hmm. Wikipedia says the earliest occurrence is in the 4th century.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
Ha Ha
Your man got monstered.
Tell yourself otherwise if you want but it was a demolition.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
The Left really have developed an Eeyore complex, haven't you?
There is no "the left" any more than there is "the right". Sensible sceptics exist on both sides of the spectrum - though very few in either Boris's or Corbyn's coteries.
Chuka is still the new LD candidate though and the LDs need his personal vote to win the seat
I've heard rumours he'll be parachuted elsewhere.
Maybe but unlikely for an existing LD seat as they have women only shortlists
I don't think Vince has got a replacement PPC yet....
He's said he'll fight a snap election (but not one in 2022).
Chuka won't be parachuted anywhere. His "Streatham Lad" schtick is at least based on reality, and he has a reasonable chance of holding in an affluent, intellectual, heavily Remain seat where he has a good personal vote.
The story about Twickenham was always nonsense based on the fact Twickenham isn't all that far from Streatham, and it's handy for Labour to suggest he's not that committed to his constituents.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
Look at the Labour benches. If that in't a collective "oh shit.....", I don't know what is. Shell-shocked, the lot of them.
Have they done no preparation? Maybe they all read pb.com - and thought Boris couldn't win....
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
The Left really have developed an Eeyore complex, haven't you?
Not seeing Boris as the Messiah is Eeyorish? Count a lot not on the Left in too.
Yep. My parents are hardly left of centre (my mother won't watch BBC because she thinks it's too lefty) but both were sending me texts last night as each cabinet member was announced about how shit they all were. They're solid Lib Dems now. North of 50% of the population are Eeyore if we're taking that YouGov poll at face value.
Chuka is still the new LD candidate though and the LDs need his personal vote to win the seat
I've heard rumours he'll be parachuted elsewhere.
Maybe but unlikely for an existing LD seat as they have women only shortlists
I don't think Vince has got a replacement PPC yet....
He's said he'll fight a snap election (but not one in 2022).
Chuka won't be parachuted anywhere. His "Streatham Lad" schtick is at least based on reality, and he has a reasonable chance of holding in an affluent, intellectual, heavily Remain seat where he has a good personal vote.
The story about Twickenham was always nonsense based on the fact Twickenham isn't all that far from Streatham, and it's handy for Labour to suggest he's not that committed to his constituents.
I heard this from LD friends, not Lab ones, but maybe you're right
This morning's performance by Johnson was extraordinary.
He was so excited, fast talking, full of positive bonhomie that he could have been on E. And it was contagious on the Tory side. They were all so excited. All that was missing was the house music and smiley faces.
On the other side, the sourpuss gloomster realists were not impressed at all by this display.
The Tories will now go away high and happy. The let down when reality bites will be cruel
Mrs May was being hailed as the reincarnation of Mrs T after her first Parliamentary outing as PM too. It didn’t last. Governing the country requires more than reading out a best of compilation of your columns.
It is amazing just how quickly people forget. Johnson's nonsense will be popular for a while. Then reality will sink in and it will be seen for what it is: vapid noise. However, for as long as Corbyn leads Labour Johnson is in the box-seat. His entire strategy is dependent on the stupidity of Labour party members. That, at least, is smart.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
Look at the Labour benches. If that in't a collective "oh shit.....", I don't know what is. Shell-shocked, the lot of them.
Have they done no preparation? Maybe they all read pb.com - and thought Boris couldn't win....
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
The only way to detoxify the term British Isles is to strip the word Britain of contemporary political meaning. Dissolve the union and allow "British" to be like "Scandinavian".
I see Watson has waved goodbye to Northern Ireland with his pride in "Britain", not the UK......
Northern Irish unionists would generally consider themselves British, which is the word Watson uses.
The term "British Isles" is less used these days due to Irish sensitivities, and nationalists and those in the Republic of Ireland understandably wouldn't identify themselves as British. But, as a geographical fact, Ireland is one of the British Isles and those there have every bit as much right to call themselves British as those on the Isle of Wight (or not - up to them). Great Britain is simply the largest of the British Isles.
Legally and politically, the United Kingdom is an entity. Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland, legally and politically.
Yes, but geographically the British Isles include the island of Ireland, and in fact those people who live there and want to be part of the United Kingdom use the term British to apply to themselves (as well as other terms).
Are you calling Titchmarsh a nobody? How. Dare. You.
It's in pretty common usage, you'll find. Not as common as it was due to the sensitivities over the Republic of Ireland, but a hell of a lot more than the PC term "Atlantic Archipelago".
And I also come back to my point that unionists in Northern Ireland are perfectly happy with the term "British" as applying to them, so your suggestion that Watson was excluding them by using it is nonsense.
McDonald's use "British and Irish farmers" in their ads.
Yes, because they come from farms run by British farmers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Irish farmers in the Republic of Ireland and (probably) farmers who identify as Irish in Northern Ireland/
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
The North Sea was widely known as the German Sea before WW1 I believe.
"The multi-nation team that is today named the British and Irish Lions first came into existence in 1888 as the Shaw and Shrewsbury Team. It was then primarily English in composition but also contained players from Scotland and Wales. Later the team used the name British Isles."
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
The North Sea was widely known as the German Sea before WW1 I believe.
In German, the North Sea is Nordsee, and the Baltic is the Ostsee (East Sea).
I see Watson has waved goodbye to Northern Ireland with his pride in "Britain", not the UK......
Northern Irish unionists would generally consider themselves British, which is the word Watson uses.
The term "British Isles" is less used these days due to Irish sensitivities, and nationalists and those in the Republic of Ireland understandably wouldn't identify themselves as British. But, as a geographical fact, Ireland is one of the British Isles and those there have every bit as much right to call themselves British as those on the Isle of Wight (or not - up to them). Great Britain is simply the largest of the British Isles.
Legally and politically, the United Kingdom is an entity. Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland, legally and politically.
Yes, but geographically the British Isles include the island of Ireland, and in fact those people who live there and want to be part of the United Kingdom use the term British to apply to themselves (as well as other terms).
Are you calling Titchmarsh a nobody? How. Dare. You.
It's in pretty common usage, you'll find. Not as common as it was due to the sensitivities over the Republic of Ireland, but a hell of a lot more than the PC term "Atlantic Archipelago".
And I also come back to my point that unionists in Northern Ireland are perfectly happy with the term "British" as applying to them, so your suggestion that Watson was excluding them by using it is nonsense.
McDonald's use "British and Irish farmers" in their ads.
Yes, because they come from farms run by British farmers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Irish farmers in the Republic of Ireland and (probably) farmers who identify as Irish in Northern Ireland/
Except they are United Kingdom farmers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland!
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
This morning's performance by Johnson was extraordinary.
He was so excited, fast talking, full of positive bonhomie that he could have been on E. And it was contagious on the Tory side. They were all so excited. All that was missing was the house music and smiley faces.
On the other side, the sourpuss gloomster realists were not impressed at all by this display.
The Tories will now go away high and happy. The let down when reality bites will be cruel
Mrs May was being hailed as the reincarnation of Mrs T after her first Parliamentary outing as PM too. It didn’t last. Governing the country requires more than reading out a best of compilation of your columns.
It is amazing just how quickly people forget. Johnson's nonsense will be popular for a while. Then reality will sink in and it will be seen for what it is: vapid noise. However, for as long as Corbyn leads Labour Johnson is in the box-seat. His entire strategy is dependent on the stupidity of Labour party members. That, at least, is smart.
The reality of a "No Deal" Brexit does not change just because it is under a BJ led government.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
The only way to detoxify the term British Isles is to strip the word Britain of contemporary political meaning. Dissolve the union and allow "British" to be like "Scandinavian".
It’s only “toxic” with hand wringing lefty bores .
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
We do still need to find a replacement term that has fewer syllables than the Atlantic Archipelago. I quite like Iona (Islands Of the North Atlantic), though perhaps you would have to say Greater Iona to distinguish from the Scottish island of the same name.
None of the islands are called "Britain". One of them is called "Great Britain" because it is the largest of the British Isles. Great Britain also happens to be a political term meaning England, Scotland and Wales - but the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, Skye etc aren't in fact part of the island of Great Britain.
And, as has been mentioned, the term long predates union. You do need a term for the archipelago. I'm not personally bothered what it is (although I understand those who are for historical reasons). But, in the absence of another widely used term, it is in fact widely called the British Isles.
a) What you not get? b) You are doing an HYFD here 'Would have won'? You just don't know that.
.
That is a worthless statement given where we are now.
You have to make the assumption that the vote share is now split four ways - and I fully recognise that other arguments and scenarios are available, as a I said below.
But once you pass this assumption, it is a nonsense to apply the thinking and models developed in a world of small percentage swings between two large parties to the current environment where both Tory and Labour are seeing half e.
I don't expect that the vote share will be split four ways - and will be surprised if the combined Tory and Labour share fails to reach 65% as happened in 2010 and 2015.Post the EU election I did suggest that the Brexit Party share would fall below 20% by the end of the Summer. Despite being ridiculed by a few on here, that appears to have already happenedear.
Lets try this, if you are right on LD vote share around 15% or less, then you are right on north east somerset, and Lab will finish second there unless they have a landslide nationwide win, in which case they might challenge for it.
If you are wrong and it is a three-four way split nationally, the party most likely to beat the tories is the LDs.
Let’s take the recent YouGov poll, but tweak it slightly so that both Labour and LibDem are equal on 21%, with the Tories on 25%, BXP on 18% and Greens on 8%.
Feed the result into Flavible’s model, and their prediction for NE Somerset is:
Tory 30.7% LibDem 27.6% Labour 16.1% BXP 15.7%
With any sort of result close to that, it is obvious that the outcome in the seat depends on Labour voters’ willingness to vote tactically for the LibDems.
I am increasingly confident that no matter what parties say, the people will vote tactically as they did in 2005.
Labour will obviously rely on the 2017 results to encourage that.
And there’s the rub. If we go into an election in the current four-way situation (noting the very respectable arguments that we won’t), the situation on how best to vote tactically will be very confused, and the 2017 results of relatively little use. This will matter a lot to voters but also to us as punters looking for betting opportunities.
And also to the parties for targeting. If Labour goes into an election at around 20% in the polls, they won’t be throwing anything into NE Somerset.
It is disappointing that those on the moderate wing of the Tory Party haven't left on mass as anticipated. Have they just dejectedly fallen into line?
Boris it would seem repays patronage. My own MP, the diminutive Alun Cairns who started as an ardent Remainer under Cameron and was then a WA deal enthusiast under May, has now come out of Boris' trousers briefly to confirm he is now a No Dealer, his loyalty has reconfirmed him as Secretary of State for Wales.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
We do still need to find a replacement term that has fewer syllables than the Atlantic Archipelago. I quite like Iona (Islands Of the North Atlantic), though perhaps you would have to say Greater Iona to distinguish from the Scottish island of the same name.
None of the islands are called "Britain". One of them is called "Great Britain" because it is the largest of the British Isles. Great Britain also happens to be a political term meaning England, Scotland and Wales - but the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, Skye etc aren't in fact part of the island of Great Britain.
And, as has been mentioned, the term long predates union. You do need a term for the archipelago. I'm not personally bothered what it is (although I understand those who are for historical reasons). But, in the absence of another widely used term, it is in fact widely called the British Isles.
I thought Great distinguished it from Little Britain meaning Britanny.
Order Order fluffs boris. Surprise surprise. He was shite. He didn't say anything solid apart from the fact that he would be inclined to guarantee the rights of EU migrants (undermined five minutes later by IDS). The right really are on the laughing gas aren't they. Tories don't ever get to accuse the left of bubble mentality after this silliness.
The Left really have developed an Eeyore complex, haven't you?
You don't really need to be on the left to understand that it's going to take something more than a vacuous but rousing speech and a few good jokes to solve the problem we face.
What specifically would you say that this exciting notion of Johnson's that the's going to make Britain great again is actually based on?
Except they are United Kingdom farmers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland!
Sorry, Mark, but no they are not.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
He is an utter arsehole. How can he have supported something so recently that he now wants to bin uncompromisingly?
He never supported it you muppet.
He was uncompromisingly against it then very relunctantly voted for it when he thought May might cancel Brexit if it didn't go through. May's gone now and so is her pathetic drivel of a deal. The backstop is dead - thankfully!
Vote = support. If he didn't support it but, but, but...he shouldn't have voted for it. Tosser (both of you).
I agree he shouldn't have backed it on MV3. I remained consistent in opposition to the vile backstop and I'm delighted its dead. RIP, no mourners. Good riddance.
Apart from a majority of the Northern Irish. But fuck them right?
Yes, fuck them.
On a sectarian basis one sectarian group wants to strip the fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. Fuck that it is never acceptable.
Nice try, but the backstop isn't a fundamentally sectarian issue outside the fact that it has its roots in an agreement explicitly designed to prevent sectarian violence. Deflect somewhere else.
The Northern Irish want a soft brexit. They support the backstop. They are being ignored by the Tory government who have made the backstop pointlessly totemic.
It is a fundamentally sectarian issue. 98% of republicans/nationalists support the backstop while 69% of unionists oppose the backstop. That is plain sectarianism pure and simple.
It would not be OK for nationalists to be stripped of their fundamental human rights, especially if it was just happening because unionists overwhelmingly wanted republicans to lose their rights. Similarly it is not OK for unionists to lose their fundamental human rights just because republicans overwhelmingly want to strip them of their rights.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
Why was it called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if "Britain" were an umbrella term for everything?
Except they are United Kingdom farmers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland!
Sorry, Mark, but no they are not.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
It's not exactly like that for Scots
All my life, whoever I spoke to in Scotland (not being from weegieland) people have described themselves as Scottish first, British second (or if a Politian a more weasly variant). Plenty of No voters in that lot.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
Why was it called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if "Britain" were an umbrella term for everything?
I thought Great distinguished it from Little Britain meaning Britanny.
It's a bit disputed. I understand Ptolomy referred to "great Britain" and "little Britain" (Ireland) although it doesn't seem to have been in common usage at that time and looks to have emerged more gradually. It seems possible that the "Great" was also convenient to distinguish from Brittany, but it seems to be a bit of an urban myth that it was coined originally for that reason.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
I thought Great distinguished it from Little Britain meaning Britanny.
It's a bit disputed. I understand Ptolomy referred to "great Britain" and "little Britain" (Ireland) although it doesn't seem to have been in common usage at that time and looks to have emerged more gradually. It seems possible that the "Great" was also convenient to distinguish from Brittany, but it seems to be a bit of an urban myth that it was coined originally for that reason.
Didn't the ancestors of the Bretons move to Brittany after the Romans left?
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
Why was it called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if "Britain" were an umbrella term for everything?
What nationality is Trump? What nation is he president of?
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
Hang on. We held all the cards, right?
Different packs.
Barnier translation: "nobody on EU side must blink".
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
Hang on. We held all the cards, right?
Different packs.
They were playing Poker. We were playing Exploding Kittens.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
Not least when different places have different names for things. The English Channel for instance.
People getting fussed over such things are engaging in historical pissing contests, and, although not exclusively, largely being faux offended.
There really has to be a GE in next month or two. This has become utterly ridiculous. A GE is our constitution's safety value and we need to press it.
There doesn't need to be a GE or any legislation to have No Deal. And if there is a vote to trigger a GE to try and cancel No Deal then Grieve and co can give up their careers and seats in Parliament to achieve it.
I expect there won't be a formal pact between Tories and BXP but I think a simple tactical decision by Farage would simplify it. If there is a clean Brexit vs No Confidence vote then Farage and the BXP should say they will stand against any MP who rejects a clean Brexit. No formal pact, but any clean Brexiteers in Parliament there's no reason for them to stand against.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
Why was it called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if "Britain" were an umbrella term for everything?
Britain is not the umbrella term for everything geographically or politically. The UK is. British is, as pointed out, the umbrella term for the nationality, though.
Chuka is still the new LD candidate though and the LDs need his personal vote to win the seat
I've heard rumours he'll be parachuted elsewhere.
Maybe but unlikely for an existing LD seat as they have women only shortlists
I don't think Vince has got a replacement PPC yet....
He's said he'll fight a snap election (but not one in 2022).
Chuka won't be parachuted anywhere. His "Streatham Lad" schtick is at least based on reality, and he has a reasonable chance of holding in an affluent, intellectual, heavily Remain seat where he has a good personal vote.
The story about Twickenham was always nonsense based on the fact Twickenham isn't all that far from Streatham, and it's handy for Labour to suggest he's not that committed to his constituents.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
Why was it called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if "Britain" were an umbrella term for everything?
Ah, this old thing again. I don't think pointing out this quirk of historical usage is the cutting point you evidently think it is.
I thought Great distinguished it from Little Britain meaning Britanny.
It's a bit disputed. I understand Ptolomy referred to "great Britain" and "little Britain" (Ireland) although it doesn't seem to have been in common usage at that time and looks to have emerged more gradually. It seems possible that the "Great" was also convenient to distinguish from Brittany, but it seems to be a bit of an urban myth that it was coined originally for that reason.
Didn't the ancestors of the Bretons move to Brittany after the Romans left?
Yes, Brittany and Cornwall are Welsh colonies. The second wave of colonisation of Brittany was to avoid the English.
Cumbria (cognate with Cymru) is also a Welsh colony.
If the UK was a country we would not be constantly having these definition debates.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal Country=geographical Nation=people
I wish each of those terms were universally interpreted so simply.
County is unfortunately sometimes used equivalently with state for starterss. I know it is wikipedia, but the Sovereign State article immediately clarifies that Sovereign County is also used. And whether that meets a proper definition of either or not unde rlaw, it shows at the least that people clearly do use them interchangably often enough to cause official confusion!
People don't tend to overthink simply saying 'my country is x'.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
Hang on. We held all the cards, right?
The first thing Dominic Raab did when he got to Brussels was ask if he could hold the cards.
One island is called Britain (the great being a Stuart invention to sell the idea of the Union) and the other island is called Ireland. To call the two islands the British Isles is an anachronism from a time when Britain asserted ownership of Ireland.
And the Irish Sea ? Does that assert Irish ownership of the water between Wales and Ireland?
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
Not least when different places have different names for things. The English Channel for instance.
People getting fussed over such things are engaging in historical pissing contests, and, although not exclusively, largely being faux offended.
I had heard in primary school [and am not at all sure if its accurate] that we had a tradition in England to name bodies of water etc after what lies to its west. Hence the Irish Sea, the English Channel etc - not sure if that's true or not. Probably like i before e etc its something that is true some of the time and not quite a few others.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
Hang on. We held all the cards, right?
The first thing Dominic Raab did when he got to Brussels was ask if he could hold the cards.
Give him a break, the poor lad had only just discovered that very morning that Brussels is in Belgium, a small country near France.
Ok, Momentum kids, either you wake up and give Tom Watson the nod to depose Corbyn next month or you face a significant part of your early adult life living in a No Deal economy.
Our EU friends have access to the internet. They read the newspapers. They also have 27 ambassadors for whom a key function is reporting back on what is going on in the UK. So they know perfectly well that Boris effectively hasn't got a majority in parliament, and therefore can't be relied upon to deliver anything even if they were to agree changes with him. They further know that there's no time to agree anything by 31st October, and that there's a good chance that the cards will all be thrown in the air again in the UK before then, either by a GE or by parliament taking back control.
So, with the best will in the world, why on earth would they spend effort and political capital on negotiations? The deal is there. The UK can take it or leave it - if it leaves it, and exits without a deal, they know perfectly well that before long the next PM will be back begging for help. That's not what they want, and if Boris thinks he can get a fig-leaf-covered version of the WA through parliament I'm sure they'll be happy to pretend that the fig-leaf is a big concession, as long as it is purely cosmetic. But they won't be expecting that to happen.
Alternatively, the UK might ask for an extension, which I expect they would grant after a bit of huffing and puffing, in the hope that something turned up to make the UK's position more sane.
Edit: I suppose that fig-leaves are by definition cosmetic. But you know what I mean!
Regardless of issues of blame, which are clearly very sensitive and fresh for him, he seems to be a man in need of a lot of help. For his sake I hope he gets it.
If the UK was a country we would not be constantly having these definition debates.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal Country=geographical Nation=people
The UK is a country made up of four nation states.
Trust you to get yourself in a tizzy about it and to get it wrong.
The UK is a state, the constituent parts of it are not. The only part of the UK which is unambiguously a separate standalone nation is Scotland. The other three parts have a more confusing status. Eg Northern Ireland was created by the partition of of Ireland, and it is almost impossible to imagine Northern Ireland as a separate independent country rather than a part of either the UK or Ireland. Wales and England share a legal and education system (and a cricket team) and have been administered as a single country for centuries.
Our EU friends have access to the internet. They read the newspapers. They also have 27 ambassadors for whom a key function is reporting back on what is going on in the UK. So they know perfectly well that Boris effectively hasn't got a majority in parliament, and therefore can't be relied upon to deliver anything even if they did agree changes with him. They further know that there's no time to agree anything by 31st October, and that there's a good chance that the cards will all be thrown in the air again in the UK before then, either by a GE or by parliament taking back control.
So, with the best will in the world, why on earth would they spend effort and political capital on negotiations? The deal is there. The UK can take it or leave it - if it leaves it, and exits without a deal, they know perfectly well that before long the next PM will be back begging for help. That's not what they want, and if Boris thinks he can get a fig-leaf covered version of the WA through parliament I'm sure they'll be happy to pretend that the fig-leaf is a big concession, as long as it is purely cosmetic. But they won't be expecting that to happen.
Of course whenthat happens the recalcitrant on this side can also read the papers and internet and so won't buy anything cosmetic.
But you are correct. The EU could do many things, but despite very few not wanting no deal (or claiming not to at any rate) they could put in effort and concede various things, all for it to fail anyway because it would still be very very difficult to get even an improved deal (from the UK side) through parliament. I'd like to think Boris could manage it if the EU gave him something to work with. But the no dealers and Grievers are just too close to their preferred outcomes to play ball, so why bother from their perspective?
Our EU friends have access to the internet. They read the newspapers. They also have 27 ambassadors for whom a key function is reporting back on what is going on in the UK. So they know perfectly well that Boris effectively hasn't got a majority in parliament, and therefore can't be relied upon to deliver anything even if they were to agree changes with him. They further know that there's no time to agree anything by 31st October, and that there's a good chance that the cards will all be thrown in the air again in the UK before then, either by a GE or by parliament taking back control.
So, with the best will in the world, why on earth would they spend effort and political capital on negotiations? The deal is there. The UK can take it or leave it - if it leaves it, and exits without a deal, they know perfectly well that before long the next PM will be back begging for help. That's not what they want, and if Boris thinks he can get a fig-leaf covered version of the WA through parliament I'm sure they'll be happy to pretend that the fig-leaf is a big concession, as long as it is purely cosmetic. But they won't be expecting that to happen.
Alternatively, the UK might ask for an extension, which I expect they would grant after a bit of huffing and puffing, in the hope that something turned up to make the UK's position more sane.
This mess is entirely May's fault for throwing away the majority and being so weak with the EU.
It does seem like the best way to get forward from here if the EU doesn't want to blink is to have an election, purge Parliament of people like Grieve and then move forwards with No Deal.
After that we won't be begging, you don't know Britain very well if you think we will turn to begging, but we will remain open to a deal the moment they want to drop their delusionally undemocratic backstop demands. The backstop was a disgrace that they tried to foist on us and if they get nothing instead that is their choice.
Following an election there are two plausible outcomes. Boris wins a majority to back No Deal, we won't beg after that. Or Boris loses and Corbyn gets a rainbow majority to have a 2nd referendum. There is no realistic alternative.
If the UK was a country we would not be constantly having these definition debates.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal Country=geographical Nation=people
The UK is a country made up of four nation states.
Trust you to get yourself in a tizzy about it and to get it wrong.
The UK is a state, the constituent parts of it are not. The only part of the UK which is unambiguously a separate standalone nation is Scotland. The other three parts have a more confusing status. Eg Northern Ireland was created by the partition of of Ireland, and it is almost impossible to imagine Northern Ireland as a separate independent country rather than a part of either the UK or Ireland. Wales and England share a legal and education system (and a cricket team) and have been administered as a single country for centuries.
Ah yes, the England is not a nation verbalese.
YAWN
If you like this song you're BRITISH - end of story-
If the UK was a country we would not be constantly having these definition debates.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal Country=geographical Nation=people
The UK is a country made up of four nation states.
Trust you to get yourself in a tizzy about it and to get it wrong.
The UK is a state, the constituent parts of it are not. The only part of the UK which is unambiguously a separate standalone nation is Scotland. The other three parts have a more confusing status. Eg Northern Ireland was created by the partition of of Ireland, and it is almost impossible to imagine Northern Ireland as a separate independent country rather than a part of either the UK or Ireland. Wales and England share a legal and education system (and a cricket team) and have been administered as a single country for centuries.
According to PM BJ, England has a legislature. It is also a distinct jurisdiction. Ergo it is a state.
Ok, Momentum kids, either you wake up and give Tom Watson the nod to depose Corbyn next month or you face a significant part of your early adult life living in a No Deal economy.
Tom Watson? The lying, slandering Nonce Finder General? That Tom Watson?
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
Hang on. We held all the cards, right?
Different packs.
LOL
We're now seeing BS that even America Trump might be ashamed to use.
The problem Barnier has that if the WA is not signed then he will be always know in future as the man who held all the cards, had the worlds best negotiating team and still could not get a deal.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
yes, Barnier got greedy and atm has nothing to show for it but a big downside for everyone. Almost as stupid as Varadkar
If the UK was a country we would not be constantly having these definition debates.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal Country=geographical Nation=people
The UK is a country made up of four nation states.
Trust you to get yourself in a tizzy about it and to get it wrong.
The UK is a state, the constituent parts of it are not. The only part of the UK which is unambiguously a separate standalone nation is Scotland. The other three parts have a more confusing status. Eg Northern Ireland was created by the partition of of Ireland, and it is almost impossible to imagine Northern Ireland as a separate independent country rather than a part of either the UK or Ireland. Wales and England share a legal and education system (and a cricket team) and have been administered as a single country for centuries.
Wales does not share an education system with England any more.
Education is fully devolved. E.g., the study of the Welsh language is compulsory for all pupils in State Schools until the age of 16 in Wales.
Ok, Momentum kids, either you wake up and give Tom Watson the nod to depose Corbyn next month or you face a significant part of your early adult life living in a No Deal economy.
Tom Watson? The lying, slandering Nonce Finder General? That Tom Watson?
I don't mean him as leader, I mean him as the instigator of a leadership contest.
Comments
https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/entertainment/days-out/london-cocktail-club-pina-coladas-1-6177803
We do still need to find a replacement term that has fewer syllables than the Atlantic Archipelago. I quite like Iona (Islands Of the North Atlantic), though perhaps you would have to say Greater Iona to distinguish from the Scottish island of the same name.
When he was campaigning to be Mayor, he talked a lot about taking on Bob Crow and the RMT and I thought we would see an engineered showdown between Boris and the RMT and a prolonged dispute which would aim to break the RMT on London Underground but it never happened.
Indeed, Boris bought off the RMT by paying them extra to drive during the Olympics and extra for Boxing Day working and setting the stage for additional payments for night working. Indeed, I heard it said Johnson and Crow actually had quite a good personal relationship despite their ideological differences.
Boris is no fool - he will use carrot if carrot works and he respects men (and women) of power and strength. He and Crow swerved a fight because they both knew they would both be losers. Beating down weaker opponents is easy but Boris is as much coward as bully and will back off those who stand up to him.
Your man got monstered.
Tell yourself otherwise if you want but it was a demolition.
Sensible sceptics exist on both sides of the spectrum - though very few in either Boris's or Corbyn's coteries.
Too bloody hot.
I agree that Swinson and Farage should be included, based on the consistent strength of their parties' polling.
Chuka won't be parachuted anywhere. His "Streatham Lad" schtick is at least based on reality, and he has a reasonable chance of holding in an affluent, intellectual, heavily Remain seat where he has a good personal vote.
The story about Twickenham was always nonsense based on the fact Twickenham isn't all that far from Streatham, and it's handy for Labour to suggest he's not that committed to his constituents.
Have they done no preparation? Maybe they all read pb.com - and thought Boris couldn't win....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/47324463
Can we have that re-named?
I am not particularly bothered by names, myself, but I do think your argument for re-naming is weak.
What true charisma really means.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1154355346632318976
"The multi-nation team that is today named the British and Irish Lions first came into existence in 1888 as the Shaw and Shrewsbury Team. It was then primarily English in composition but also contained players from Scotland and Wales. Later the team used the name British Isles."
We could call it the British Sea.
https://youtu.be/-tW0QqiT2LU
And, as has been mentioned, the term long predates union. You do need a term for the archipelago. I'm not personally bothered what it is (although I understand those who are for historical reasons). But, in the absence of another widely used term, it is in fact widely called the British Isles.
Cus I know who I'm supporting.
And also to the parties for targeting. If Labour goes into an election at around 20% in the polls, they won’t be throwing anything into NE Somerset.
Boris it would seem repays patronage. My own MP, the diminutive Alun Cairns who started as an ardent Remainer under Cameron and was then a WA deal enthusiast under May, has now come out of Boris' trousers briefly to confirm he is now a No Dealer, his loyalty has reconfirmed him as Secretary of State for Wales.
Good grief!
What specifically would you say that this exciting notion of Johnson's that the's going to make Britain great again is actually based on?
Sorry, Mark, but no they are not.
The country is "the United Kingdom", the nationality is "British". Some people who would rather there wasn't a union prefer to describe their nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Cornish or whatever they like. And that's completely fine by me. But those who are content with the union, whichever of the British Isles they hail from, would normally use "British" (possibly alongside other terms - plenty of proud Lancastrians who are also happy to be called British, for example).
It would not be OK for nationalists to be stripped of their fundamental human rights, especially if it was just happening because unionists overwhelmingly wanted republicans to lose their rights. Similarly it is not OK for unionists to lose their fundamental human rights just because republicans overwhelmingly want to strip them of their rights.
https://factcheckni.org/facts/are-60-against-the-backstop-in-northern-ireland/
All my life, whoever I spoke to in Scotland (not being from weegieland) people have described themselves as Scottish first, British second (or if a Politian a more weasly variant). Plenty of No voters in that lot.
British covers the British Isles.
Thank goodness.
So anything he says take with a pinch of salt. it is the response of the leaders that is important.
What nation is he president of?
There really has to be a GE in next month or two. This has become utterly ridiculous. A GE is our constitution's safety value and we need to press it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-speech-in-front-of-presidential-seal-with-russian-eagle-2019-7
https://www.jaredomara.co.uk/recentactivity/2019/7/25/statement-regarding-my-mental-health-and-recent-events
People getting fussed over such things are engaging in historical pissing contests, and, although not exclusively, largely being faux offended.
I expect there won't be a formal pact between Tories and BXP but I think a simple tactical decision by Farage would simplify it. If there is a clean Brexit vs No Confidence vote then Farage and the BXP should say they will stand against any MP who rejects a clean Brexit. No formal pact, but any clean Brexiteers in Parliament there's no reason for them to stand against.
The UK is a state, made up of three countries and part of a fourth country. It is not itself a country.
State=legal
Country=geographical
Nation=people
Cumbria (cognate with Cymru) is also a Welsh colony.
Trust you to get yourself in a tizzy about it and to get it wrong.
County is unfortunately sometimes used equivalently with state for starterss. I know it is wikipedia, but the Sovereign State article immediately clarifies that Sovereign County is also used. And whether that meets a proper definition of either or not unde rlaw, it shows at the least that people clearly do use them interchangably often enough to cause official confusion!
People don't tend to overthink simply saying 'my country is x'.
Batten down the hatches. This is gonna be a rough ride.
Our EU friends have access to the internet. They read the newspapers. They also have 27 ambassadors for whom a key function is reporting back on what is going on in the UK. So they know perfectly well that Boris effectively hasn't got a majority in parliament, and therefore can't be relied upon to deliver anything even if they were to agree changes with him. They further know that there's no time to agree anything by 31st October, and that there's a good chance that the cards will all be thrown in the air again in the UK before then, either by a GE or by parliament taking back control.
So, with the best will in the world, why on earth would they spend effort and political capital on negotiations? The deal is there. The UK can take it or leave it - if it leaves it, and exits without a deal, they know perfectly well that before long the next PM will be back begging for help. That's not what they want, and if Boris thinks he can get a fig-leaf-covered version of the WA through parliament I'm sure they'll be happy to pretend that the fig-leaf is a big concession, as long as it is purely cosmetic. But they won't be expecting that to happen.
Alternatively, the UK might ask for an extension, which I expect they would grant after a bit of huffing and puffing, in the hope that something turned up to make the UK's position more sane.
Edit: I suppose that fig-leaves are by definition cosmetic. But you know what I mean!
But you are correct. The EU could do many things, but despite very few not wanting no deal (or claiming not to at any rate) they could put in effort and concede various things, all for it to fail anyway because it would still be very very difficult to get even an improved deal (from the UK side) through parliament. I'd like to think Boris could manage it if the EU gave him something to work with. But the no dealers and Grievers are just too close to their preferred outcomes to play ball, so why bother from their perspective?
It does seem like the best way to get forward from here if the EU doesn't want to blink is to have an election, purge Parliament of people like Grieve and then move forwards with No Deal.
After that we won't be begging, you don't know Britain very well if you think we will turn to begging, but we will remain open to a deal the moment they want to drop their delusionally undemocratic backstop demands. The backstop was a disgrace that they tried to foist on us and if they get nothing instead that is their choice.
Following an election there are two plausible outcomes. Boris wins a majority to back No Deal, we won't beg after that. Or Boris loses and Corbyn gets a rainbow majority to have a 2nd referendum. There is no realistic alternative.
YAWN
If you like this song you're BRITISH - end of story-
https://youtu.be/-tW0QqiT2LU
Kerala is a State
Texas is a State
Bavaria is a State
Education is fully devolved. E.g., the study of the Welsh language is compulsory for all pupils in State Schools until the age of 16 in Wales.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18023389