I see she's also suggesting that her previous remarks on capital punishment were taken out of context. That context would be pols being allowed to spout any old populist shite without being pulled up about it later presumably.
QTWTAIN. I lived there for a long time, quite recently. The seat is full of Labour loyalists (not all of them left-wing by any means) plus non-Labour people (including Tories) who like Jeremy as their MP.
Yes, I wasn't being entirely serious re Corbyn (and indeed, downplay the idea three times in the article).
But - and I think this worth noting - I think many aspects of Corbyn's situation illustrate an important point (even if one which might not apply to him for other reasons), and we could potentially see shock Labour losses in an autumn election similar in reverse to their gains in Canterbury or Kensington, where the demographics/politics of an area makes them susceptible to a very large swing against.
Yes - the swings in the national polls are so huge that they are bound to produce astonishing results in various places. That in my view is the main challenge to the Opposition parties - I think there are loads of voters who would readily vote for any of them if they felt they were the clear anti-Tory challenger and had a decent chance of unseating the Conservative MP, but it's going to be har dto work out who the main challenger is, amid a forest of leaflets with misleading bar charts and comparisons to diverse past elections.
I don't think a Remain alliance is all that realistic in terms of candidates actually standing down - the Greens in particular leave it entirely to their constituency parties, where a handful of determined people can insist on standing (which is what went wrong in Broxtowe in 2010). But an informal agreement on who's going to try harder in different places and a certain restraint in deliberatrely misleading bar charts where we know that someone else has a better chance is conceivable. I know from direct contact that that will happen in parts of the southeast, and it was already visible in the local elections if you looked hard enough.
Do you mean 2010 (wrt Broxtowe)? A few years ago now, but I don't recall any discussions at national level on any kind of alliance or standing down in certain seats between Greens and anyone else in 2010. Caroline Lucas, as the high profile example, faced a LibDem.
I see she's also suggesting that her previous remarks on capital punishment were taken out of context. That context would be pols being allowed to spout any old populist shite without being pulled up about it later presumably.
'That context would be pols being allowed to spout any old populist shite without being pulled up about it later presumably'.
There, you've just gone and captured the essence of 'Johnsonism', you have!
We can be fairly confident that all major parties will lose one or more high-profile MPs next time round, due to how very different the polls are, but there's another good reason why this won't happen to Corbyn, in addition to those in the article and stated in the comments. It would be a ridiculous waste of resources for the Lib Dems. They have an opportunity to win a historic number of seats. They would be crazy to put effort into such a long-shot. So this seat only switches if the voters do it themselves, without significant encouragement from the Lib Dems.
I wasn't aware the LibDems had high profile MPs, especially with Grandpa Cable stepping down at the next election.
Farron is the one often predicted. Although with a counter-reaction to Brexit in rural areas, he might now be safer than it appears.
Is he standing? He has been so quiet since stopping being leader I would assume he has lost interest?
Surely Chukka is the high profile figure who may struggle?
Would be an interesting contest if he stands in Streatham, which is where I live. He has started putting out leaflets locally with Lib Dem branding which suggests he may intend to stand again and not depart for leafier suburbs. When he was first elected in 2010 the LDs came within 3000 of winning so with Chuka as their candidate they would certainly give Labour a run for their money, especially if Labour select a Corbynista with no local record.
While Corbyn is unlikely to lose his seat, the broader truth is that the LD revival is going to hit Labour hardest in London. If not in Islington North, there could be some really big majorities overturned elsewhere. It's why the LDs are also right to put their efforts into Uxbridge. The anger at both traditional main parties in this city is palpable.
More specifically, remainer London - so as well as the SW that the LibDems already hold, the places to watch are Camden, Islington, Haringey, Ealing, Merton, Southwark and Lambeth in particular. I'd also expect an uptick in the West London Boroughs although the LDs have very little presence on the ground in Westminster-Kensington-Hammersmith (or Wandsworth, unless Justine joins).
Starmer is safe in Holborn and St Pancras, Tulip Siddiqi shoud be nervous in Hampstead and Kilburn. Lammy is fine in Tottenham, but even with a huge majority the Labour MP for Wood Green & Hornsey (can't remember her name) should definitely be looking over her shoulder.
Johnson means LD can forget it imo.
Those on the left priority is stop Johnson No Deal
Only 1 party can do that.
Plus Swinson is crap Tory voting hypocrite.
You're absolutely right, and that explains why Labour has moved to No Confidence the government.
Oh wait. No they haven't. In fact, they've actively opposed No Confidencing the government because they're frit of losing a few seats.
If the LibDems were run by someone competent - like Shirley Williams of old or Chris Huhne or maybe even Nick Clegg - then this message (of Labour enabling a Tory No Deal Brexit) would be being hammered on every talk show, every leaflet, every news broadcast.
Fortunately for the Labour Party, the LibDems are almost as incompetent as they are.
Interesting - but it's important to differentiate Islington North from Islington South. I lived in Islington North for many years and it has a very different demographic to the southern part of the borough. Corbyn's majority will go down - probably substantially, but it will be at least 10,000 to 15,000. Emily Thornberry, though, could be in a real battle. That may well explain why she is becoming more and more vocal about Brexit and anti-Semitism. Her focus now is not on the leadership, but shoring up her seat.
I lived in Archway (Islington North) from 98 to 2003 before moving down to Angel (Islington South) for a few years so Jezza was my MP for a bit. In fact I voted for him (shudders in shame) in 2001. I would agree with your analysis save that Islington North is gentrifying rapidly. The horrible Archway Tower over the Station has been given a facelift and is now fancy flats with a great view of the City. Even before I left estate agents were tentatively calling it “Highgate Slopes” (didn’t stick) but even so the area’s character is changing as it is squeezed between affluent areas to its north and south that would, to my mind, be prime LD remainer territory.
So religious persecution and a catastrophic civil war (or several wars) before we get to a re-made Britain? Good-oh.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the moment at which we get to burn the Brexit martyrs at the stake in Smithfield. Can we have Steve Baker and Mark Francoise up first, please?
In fairness, he has the right idea. We do need fibre to socket cabling, and we need it sooner rather than later. If South Korea could do it 15 years ago, we should be able to in less than 15 years from now.
But if he doesn't provide the resources to do it quickly, his target is meaningless.
(I'm also baffled by these experts who think 5G will be easier than cabling in the Highlands of Scotland. Have they ever tried to make a phone call in Fort Augustus?)
So, DSL.
You have DSL, I suspect.
And how DSL works is that the wire that runs between your house and (at the least) your local wiring cabinet is divided into two frequency bands. One is the regular frequencies your voice uses when you're talking. The rest is used for data. But this process of sectioning off certain frequencies for data and for voice is incredibly inefficient. It means that between you and your local exchange your voice is being carried as an inefficient analog signal, and then converted to digital, and then converted back again at the other end. And you have to make sure there are big frequency "gaps" to avoid cross-contamination.
If we simply got rid of the analog portion of the network, put ethernet sockets in homes, then we could massively simplify our networks, increase speeds dramatically, and do this all without digging up the streets to take fibre the last 100 yards. (We'd still want to do the digging up in dense urban areas... but in most towns and suburbia... why bother? Using the full frequency of twisted pair over 100 yards gets you about 2gig of bandwidth today, and that's only going to increase over time.)
Isn't this the Fibre to Cabinet solution that BT and others already roll out?
No, because it's still split frequency (POTS + data) to the cabinet. All so a few oldies with analog phones and fax machines don't have to switch.
I see she's also suggesting that her previous remarks on capital punishment were taken out of context. That context would be pols being allowed to spout any old populist shite without being pulled up about it later presumably.
Brazen dishonesty does suit her position as a member of Johnson’s cabinet.
I note she also wants to reverse the policy on tolerance towards drug possession again. So much for the speculation about the move towards legalising cannabis.
QTWTAIN. I lived there for a long time, quite recently. The seat is full of Labour loyalists (not all of them left-wing by any means) plus non-Labour people (including Tories) who like Jeremy as their MP.
Yes, I wasn't being entirely serious re Corbyn (and indeed, downplay the idea three times in the article).
But - and I think this worth noting - I think many aspects of Corbyn's situation illustrate an important point (even if one which might not apply to him for other reasons), and we could potentially see shock Labour losses in an autumn election similar in reverse to their gains in Canterbury or Kensington, where the demographics/politics of an area makes them susceptible to a very large swing against.
Yes - the swings in the national polls are so huge that they are bound to produce astonishing results in various places. That in my view is the main challenge to the Opposition parties - I think there are loads of voters who would readily vote for any of them if they felt they were the clear anti-Tory challenger and had a decent chance of unseating the Conservative MP, but it's going to be har dto work out who the main challenger is, amid a forest of leaflets with misleading bar charts and comparisons to diverse past elections.
I don't think a Remain alliance is all that realistic in terms of candidates actually standing down - the Greens in particular leave it entirely to their constituency parties, where a handful of determined people can insist on standing (which is what went wrong in Broxtowe in 2010). But an informal agreement on who's going to try harder in different places and a certain restraint in deliberatrely misleading bar charts where we know that someone else has a better chance is conceivable. I know from direct contact that that will happen in parts of the southeast, and it was already visible in the local elections if you looked hard enough.
I guess that the various anti-Brexit groups will produce a list of candidates with the best chance of beating no deal Tories in each consitituency and urge people to vote accordingly. No doubt it would include Labour, LD, Green, SNP and PC candidates - perhaps even a few anti-Brexit Tories if any survive to contest the next election.
QTWTAIN. I lived there for a long time, quite recently. The seat is full of Labour loyalists (not all of them left-wing by any means) plus non-Labour people (including Tories) who like Jeremy as their MP.
Yes, I wasn't being entirely serious re Corbyn (and indeed, downplay the idea three times in the article).
But - and I think this worth noting - I think many aspects of Corbyn's situation illustrate an important point (even if one which might not apply to him for other reasons), and we could potentially see shock Labour losses in an autumn election similar in reverse to their gains in Canterbury or Kensington, where the demographics/politics of an area makes them susceptible to a very large swing against.
Yes - the swings in the national polls are so huge that they are bound to produce astonishing results in various places. That in my view is the main challenge to the Opposition parties - I think there are loads of voters who would readily vote for any of them if they felt they were the clear anti-Tory challenger and had a decent chance of unseating the Conservative MP, but it's going to be har dto work out who the main challenger is, amid a forest of leaflets with misleading bar charts and comparisons to diverse past elections.
I don't think a Remain alliance is all that realistic in terms of candidates actually standing down - the Greens in particular leave it entirely to their constituency parties, where a handful of determined people can insist on standing (which is what went wrong in Broxtowe in 2010). But an informal agreement on who's going to try harder in different places and a certain restraint in deliberatrely misleading bar charts where we know that someone else has a better chance is conceivable. I know from direct contact that that will happen in parts of the southeast, and it was already visible in the local elections if you looked hard enough.
I guess that the various anti-Brexit groups will produce a list of candidates with the best chance of beating no deal Tories in each consitituency and urge people to vote accordingly. No doubt it would include Labour, LD, Green, SNP and PC candidates - perhaps even a few anti-Brexit Tories if any survive to contest the next election.
In fairness, he has the right idea. We do need fibre to socket cabling, and we need it sooner rather than later. If South Korea could do it 15 years ago, we should be able to in less than 15 years from now.
But if he doesn't provide the resources to do it quickly, his target is meaningless.
(I'm also baffled by these experts who think 5G will be easier than cabling in the Highlands of Scotland. Have they ever tried to make a phone call in Fort Augustus?)
So, DSL.
You have DSL, I suspect.
And how DSL works is that the wire that runs between your house and (at the least) your local wiring cabinet is divided into two frequency bands. One is the regular frequencies your voice uses when you're talking. The rest is used for data. But this process of sectioning off certain frequencies for data and for voice is incredibly inefficient. It means that between you and your local exchange your voice is being carried as an inefficient analog signal, and then converted to digital, and then converted back again at the other end. And you have to make sure there are big frequency "gaps" to avoid cross-contamination.
If we simply got rid of the analog portion of the network, put ethernet sockets in homes, then we could massively simplify our networks, increase speeds dramatically, and do this all without digging up the streets to take fibre the last 100 yards. (We'd still want to do the digging up in dense urban areas... but in most towns and suburbia... why bother? Using the full frequency of twisted pair over 100 yards gets you about 2gig of bandwidth today, and that's only going to increase over time.)
Isn't this the Fibre to Cabinet solution that BT and others already roll out?
No, because it's still split frequency (POTS + data) to the cabinet. All so a few oldies with analog phones and fax machines don't have to switch.
How much would it cost to mandate your alternative within five years ? Do you know of any estimates ?
Just as the PM is an idiot for just expecting no backstop and not proposing any alternative, those in Parliament who want to avoid no deal need to actually have a plan.
I see she's also suggesting that her previous remarks on capital punishment were taken out of context. That context would be pols being allowed to spout any old populist shite without being pulled up about it later presumably.
Brazen dishonesty does suit her position as a member of Johnson’s cabinet.
I note she also wants to reverse the policy on tolerance towards drug possession again. So much for the speculation about the move towards legalising cannabis.
To be fair, as Mr Goodwin has noted, the gap in the market is for a socially conservative party. And as Jack Straw and David Blunkett have demonstrated, the voters tend to reward parties with illiberal Home Secretaries.
While Corbyn is unlikely to lose his seat, the broader truth is that the LD revival is going to hit Labour hardest in London. If not in Islington North, there could be some really big majorities overturned elsewhere. It's why the LDs are also right to put their efforts into Uxbridge. The anger at both traditional main parties in this city is palpable.
More specifically, remainer London - so as well as the SW that the LibDems already hold, the places to watch are Camden, Islington, Haringey, Ealing, Merton, Southwark and Lambeth in particular. I'd also expect an uptick in the West London Boroughs although the LDs have very little presence on the ground in Westminster-Kensington-Hammersmith (or Wandsworth, unless Justine joins).
Starmer is safe in Holborn and St Pancras, Tulip Siddiqi shoud be nervous in Hampstead and Kilburn. Lammy is fine in Tottenham, but even with a huge majority the Labour MP for Wood Green & Hornsey (can't remember her name) should definitely be looking over her shoulder.
Johnson means LD can forget it imo.
Those on the left priority is stop Johnson No Deal
Only 1 party can do that.
Plus Swinson is crap Tory voting hypocrite.
I very much doubt Corbyn is going to get an overall majority so a coalition is the best you can probably hope for but how on earth is that ever going to work? The Corbynistas can't abide half their own party let alone anyone else. If ever there was a party totally unsuited to compromise and coalition it has to be Corbyn's Labour. So, in a word, you are f**ed
In fairness, he has the right idea. We do need fibre to socket cabling, and we need it sooner rather than later. If South Korea could do it 15 years ago, we should be able to in less than 15 years from now.
But if he doesn't provide the resources to do it quickly, his target is meaningless.
(I'm also baffled by these experts who think 5G will be easier than cabling in the Highlands of Scotland. Have they ever tried to make a phone call in Fort Augustus?)
So, DSL.
You have DSL, I suspect.
And how DSL works is that the wire that runs between your house and (at the least) your local wiring cabinet is divided into two frequency bands. One is the regular frequencies your voice uses when you're talking. The rest is used for data. But this process of sectioning off certain frequencies for data and for voice is incredibly inefficient. It means that between you and your local exchange your voice is being carried as an inefficient analog signal, and then converted to digital, and then converted back again at the other end. And you have to make sure there are big frequency "gaps" to avoid cross-contamination.
If we simply got rid of the analog portion of the network, put ethernet sockets in homes, then we could massively simplify our networks, increase speeds dramatically, and do this all without digging up the streets to take fibre the last 100 yards. (We'd still want to do the digging up in dense urban areas... but in most towns and suburbia... why bother? Using the full frequency of twisted pair over 100 yards gets you about 2gig of bandwidth today, and that's only going to increase over time.)
Isn't this the Fibre to Cabinet solution that BT and others already roll out?
No, because it's still split frequency (POTS + data) to the cabinet. All so a few oldies with analog phones and fax machines don't have to switch.
POTS is on the way out in UK iirc. BT talks about 2025 I think. Doubt they will hit that even if it is still a target.
Just as the PM is an idiot for just expecting no backstop and not proposing any alternative, those in Parliament who want to avoid no deal need to actually have a plan.
Just saying "this is horrid" achieves nothing.
As I understand it the plan is:
1) Bring down this wretched government 2) Organise a remain alliance at the GE 3) Secure Remain majority 4) Revoke Article 50
In fairness, he has the right idea. We do need fibre to socket cabling, and we need it sooner rather than later. If South Korea could do it 15 years ago, we should be able to in less than 15 years from now.
But if he doesn't provide the resources to do it quickly, his target is meaningless.
(I'm also baffled by these experts who think 5G will be easier than cabling in the Highlands of Scotland. Have they ever tried to make a phone call in Fort Augustus?)
So, DSL.
You have DSL, I suspect.
And how DSL works is that the wire that runs between your house and (at the least) your local wiring cabinet is divided into two frequency bands. One is the regular frequencies your voice uses when you're talking. The rest is used for data. But this process of sectioning off certain frequencies for data and for voice is incredibly inefficient. It means that between you and your local exchange your voice is being carried as an inefficient analog signal, and then converted to digital, and then converted back again at the other end. And you have to make sure there are big frequency "gaps" to avoid cross-contamination.
If we simply got rid of the analog portion of the network, put ethernet sockets in homes, then we could massively simplify our networks, increase speeds dramatically, and do this all without digging up the streets to take fibre the last 100 yards. (We'd still want to do the digging up in dense urban areas... but in most towns and suburbia... why bother? Using the full frequency of twisted pair over 100 yards gets you about 2gig of bandwidth today, and that's only going to increase over time.)
Isn't this the Fibre to Cabinet solution that BT and others already roll out?
No, because it's still split frequency (POTS + data) to the cabinet. All so a few oldies with analog phones and fax machines don't have to switch.
How much would it cost to mandate your alternative within five years ? Do you know of any estimates ?
The problem is that there are 3-5% of users who have systems that won't work if you switched to digital everywhere. This is people with old alarm systems, people with fax machines, and the elderly who still use (and love) their home phones.
From the point of view of BT, they would save a huge amount of money. There would be no analog lines to "switch", so they would free up real estate in traditional exchanges, they wouldn't need to pay maintenance on a whole bunch of legacy hardware. Of course, they'd become ever more "utility", but that'a price worth paying.
We have fibre to the house as standard on our new build in Newcastle
How much quicker does PB load?
I refuse to pay for a high speed tariff
Charging more for higher speeds is a con, actually, given Moore's Law.
We weren't charged more for superior digital telehone exchanges after BT was privatised and they went in faster by order of the regulator. The quality of service went up and the price stayed fairly stable. It was regulated of course, instead of having >100 providers and 5,000 tariffs.
In fairness, he has the right idea. We do need fibre to socket cabling, and we need it sooner rather than later. If South Korea could do it 15 years ago, we should be able to in less than 15 years from now.
But if he doesn't provide the resources to do it quickly, his target is meaningless.
(I'm also baffled by these experts who think 5G will be easier than cabling in the Highlands of Scotland. Have they ever tried to make a phone call in Fort Augustus?)
So, DSL.
You have DSL, I suspect.
And how DSL works is that the wire that runs between your house and (at the least) your local wiring cabinet is divided into two frequency bands. One is the regular frequencies your voice uses when you're talking. The rest is used for data. But this process of sectioning off certain frequencies for data and for voice is incredibly inefficient. It means that between you and your local exchange your voice is being carried as an inefficient analog signal, and then converted to digital, and then converted back again at the other end. And you have to make sure there are big frequency "gaps" to avoid cross-contamination.
If we simply got rid of the analog portion of the network, put ethernet sockets in homes, then we could massively simplify our networks, increase speeds dramatically, and do this all without digging up the streets to take fibre the last 100 yards. (We'd still want to do the digging up in dense urban areas... but in most towns and suburbia... why bother? Using the full frequency of twisted pair over 100 yards gets you about 2gig of bandwidth today, and that's only going to increase over time.)
Isn't this the Fibre to Cabinet solution that BT and others already roll out?
No, because it's still split frequency (POTS + data) to the cabinet. All so a few oldies with analog phones and fax machines don't have to switch.
How much would it cost to mandate your alternative within five years ? Do you know of any estimates ?
The problem is that there are 3-5% of users who have systems that won't work if you switched to digital everywhere. This is people with old alarm systems, people with fax machines, and the elderly who still use (and love) their home phones...
While Corbyn is unlikely to lose his seat, the broader truth is that the LD revival is going to hit Labour hardest in London. If not in Islington North, there could be some really big majorities overturned elsewhere. It's why the LDs are also right to put their efforts into Uxbridge. The anger at both traditional main parties in this city is palpable.
More specifically, remainer London - so as well as the SW that the LibDems already hold, the places to watch are Camden, Islington, Haringey, Ealing, Merton, Southwark and Lambeth in particular. I'd also expect an uptick in the West London Boroughs although the LDs have very little presence on the ground in Westminster-Kensington-Hammersmith (or Wandsworth, unless Justine joins).
Starmer is safe in Holborn and St Pancras, Tulip Siddiqi shoud be nervous in Hampstead and Kilburn. Lammy is fine in Tottenham, but even with a huge majority the Labour MP for Wood Green & Hornsey (can't remember her name) should definitely be looking over her shoulder.
Johnson means LD can forget it imo.
Those on the left priority is stop Johnson No Deal
Only 1 party can do that.
Plus Swinson is crap Tory voting hypocrite.
You're absolutely right, and that explains why Labour has moved to No Confidence the government.
Oh wait. No they haven't. In fact, they've actively opposed No Confidencing the government because they're frit of losing a few seats.
If the LibDems were run by someone competent - like Shirley Williams of old or Chris Huhne or maybe even Nick Clegg - then this message (of Labour enabling a Tory No Deal Brexit) would be being hammered on every talk show, every leaflet, every news broadcast.
Except the Lib Dems generally don’t get invited on talk shows and news broadcasts, certainly not in proportion to current polling.
In fairness, he has the right idea. We do need fibre to socket cabling, and we need it sooner rather than later. If South Korea could do it 15 years ago, we should be able to in less than 15 years from now.
But if he doesn't provide the resources to do it quickly, his target is meaningless.
(I'm also baffled by these experts who think 5G will be easier than cabling in the Highlands of Scotland. Have they ever tried to make a phone call in Fort Augustus?)
So, DSL.
You have DSL, I suspect.
And how DSL works is that the wire that runs between your house and (at the least) your local wiring cabinet is divided into two frequency bands. One is the regular frequencies your voice uses when you're talking. The rest is used for data. But this process of sectioning off certain frequencies for data and for voice is incredibly inefficient. It means that between you and your local exchange your voice is being carried as an inefficient analog signal, and then converted to digital, and then converted back again at the other end. And you have to make sure there are big frequency "gaps" to avoid cross-contamination.
If we simply got rid of the analog portion of the network, put ethernet sockets in homes, then we could massively simplify our networks, increase speeds dramatically, and do this all without digging up the streets to take fibre the last 100 yards. (We'd still want to do the digging up in dense urban areas... but in most towns and suburbia... why bother? Using the full frequency of twisted pair over 100 yards gets you about 2gig of bandwidth today, and that's only going to increase over time.)
Isn't this the Fibre to Cabinet solution that BT and others already roll out?
No, because it's still split frequency (POTS + data) to the cabinet. All so a few oldies with analog phones and fax machines don't have to switch.
How much would it cost to mandate your alternative within five years ? Do you know of any estimates ?
The problem is that there are 3-5% of users who have systems that won't work if you switched to digital everywhere. This is people with old alarm systems, people with fax machines, and the elderly who still use (and love) their home phones...
That was the cost I was referring to.
It can be done. It wouldn't be that expensive. It would annoy a lot of old people.
Seven years seems like a reasonable estimate of time horizons. As long as we actually, you know, started the work rather than just talking about it.
Somebody mentioned Broadband for the Rural North (B4RN) upthread as an example of a community owned, full-fibre operator. Whilst it’s correct to point out that local volunteers provide free labour on a B4RN project, it’s only saving a very small part of the overall build cost. More significant is the granting of wayleaves without payment by landowners (usually farmers or large rural estates). The free wayleaves save significant running costs but also allow for more of the network to be installed across farmland. Burying duct for the fibre cables using ploughing techniques that farmers are familiar with can be done for 50p per metre and a total cost including the duct and fibre of c. £4 per metre (depending on number of fibres in the cable). That compares to over £50 per metre for BT Openreach to install new ducts along the highway. On the B4RN project I led, take-up has reached 90%+ in the remote areas that now enjoy a gigabit of bandwith (or 10gig if needed).
In fairness, he has the right idea. We do need fibre to socket cabling, and we need it sooner rather than later. If South Korea could do it 15 years ago, we should be able to in less than 15 years from now.
But if he doesn't provide the resources to do it quickly, his target is meaningless.
(I'm also baffled by these experts who think 5G will be easier than cabling in the Highlands of Scotland. Have they ever tried to make a phone call in Fort Augustus?)
Just spent a fortnight sailing in the Lofoten islands, which make the Highlands look severely over populated, and there is good 4G everywhere. God knows how they do it, I never actually noticed any masts, but they do.
Irrelevantly, I fulfilled a lifelong dream by swimming in the sea, no wetsuit, inside the Arctic circle, so the ocean currents are still doing their stuff.
While Corbyn is unlikely to lose his seat, the broader truth is that the LD revival is going to hit Labour hardest in London. If not in Islington North, there could be some really big majorities overturned elsewhere. It's why the LDs are also right to put their efforts into Uxbridge. The anger at both traditional main parties in this city is palpable.
More specifically, remainer London - so as well as the SW that the LibDems already hold, the places to watch are Camden, Islington, Haringey, Ealing, Merton, Southwark and Lambeth in particular. I'd also expect an uptick in the West London Boroughs although the LDs have very little presence on the ground in Westminster-Kensington-Hammersmith (or Wandsworth, unless Justine joins).
Starmer is safe in Holborn and St Pancras, Tulip Siddiqi shoud be nervous in Hampstead and Kilburn. Lammy is fine in Tottenham, but even with a huge majority the Labour MP for Wood Green & Hornsey (can't remember her name) should definitely be looking over her shoulder.
Johnson means LD can forget it imo.
Those on the left priority is stop Johnson No Deal
Only 1 party can do that.
Plus Swinson is crap Tory voting hypocrite.
You're absolutely right, and that explains why Labour has moved to No Confidence the government.
Oh wait. No they haven't. In fact, they've actively opposed No Confidencing the government because they're frit of losing a few seats.
If the LibDems were run by someone competent - like Shirley Williams of old or Chris Huhne or maybe even Nick Clegg - then this message (of Labour enabling a Tory No Deal Brexit) would be being hammered on every talk show, every leaflet, every news broadcast.
Except the Lib Dems generally don’t get invited on talk shows and news broadcasts, certainly not in proportion to current polling.
That's a shitty answer.
The LDs are not a serious political force because - at least in part - they're not run professionally. Every LibDem MP should be working 100 hour weeks, mixing fund raising and media events. They are the "pro Remain" force, so why aren't they shaking down big business? Why aren't there weekly City events where cheque books are gotten out?
Mr. 1000, the ground is very favourable for the Lib Dems now, but that means there's more reason, not less, for them to be proactive (as you suggest).
In particular, trying to get defections, and working hard to try and put together a GE alliance with Plaid and the Greens to maximum benefit. These circumstances might not recur again and it could be very good for the yellows.
They will not take Islington - c'mon - but what a time (!) to be a Liberal Democrat.
With both main parties under toxic (to many) leaders and repelling moderates by the bucket load, plus the golden opportunity to front the increasingly powerful Remain brand, if a general election comes in the current circumstances, Brexit not delivered and thus still up for grabs, one's mouth waters / one dreads to think (delete to taste) what Jo and the yellows could achieve. Balance of power at the very least.
Such a turnaround. And so swift too. As recently as last year, their horizons did not extend much beyond building speed bumps.
To paraphrase Sir Alex Ferguson - "Hard to believe! Politics. Bloody Hell."
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
Do we need a vast bureaucracy and power exercised so remotely in a modern, interconnect world? The idea is so 20th century as to seem quaint.
Surrey County Council employs more people than the EU
Surrey Council - 23,000 employees The EU - 55,000 employees
I'm also reckoning - and I'm just going out on a limb here - that Surrey's employees trend cheaper than the EU's.
Maybe it was all the councils in Surrey, I will have to check where the factoid came from. Anyway hardly a "vast bureaucracy" given the scale and diversity of the continent
Oh wait. No they haven't. In fact, they've actively opposed No Confidencing the government because they're frit of losing a few seats.
Nonsense. They unwisely gave in to pressure to VONC May, which as expected resuylted in her defeating the measure and strengthening her position. A VONC that you don't expect to win is a fundamentally Bad Idea.
Irrelevantly, I fulfilled a lifelong dream by swimming in the sea, no wetsuit, inside the Arctic circle, so the ocean currents are still doing their stuff.
Irrelevantly, I fulfilled a lifelong dream by swimming in the sea, no wetsuit, inside the Arctic circle, so the ocean currents are still doing their stuff.
Arctic with no wetsuit !!!
Hats off. I need one for Hampstead Ponds.
It really wasn't that cold. There's the thermohaline thing going on, and having 24/7 sun shining on a gently sloping beach must help a lot too.
@rcs1000: I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that, other than to note that shittiness is a guiding principle for all the major parties at the moment (I’ll confess my knowledge of the SNP is minimal).
If “why” isn’t a rhetorical question, then I’d contend that the answer is the post-Coalition collapse and the hollowing out of everything in the LDs other than the basic local campaigning function. That explains rather than excuses, but for a party widely believed to be at death’s door under six months ago, it’s not surprising that ramping up is taking some time.
(Quote missing because, however shitty our parties may be, Vanilla is shittier. Providing n characters of quoted text then saying “oh sorry, you can’t post n characters” is pure UX fail, and trimming long quotes individually is almost impossible on a small phone screen.)
Oh wait. No they haven't. In fact, they've actively opposed No Confidencing the government because they're frit of losing a few seats.
Nonsense. They unwisely gave in to pressure to VONC May, which as expected resuylted in her defeating the measure and strengthening her position. A VONC that you don't expect to win is a fundamentally Bad Idea.
Why? It keeps pressure on the government. Thatcher called and lost 5 votes of Confidence while opposition leader, before she won the final one with a majority of 1.
While Corbyn is unlikely to lose his seat, the broader truth is that the LD revival is going to hit Labour hardest in London. If not in Islington North, there could be some really big majorities overturned elsewhere. It's why the LDs are also right to put their efforts into Uxbridge. The anger at both traditional main parties in this city is palpable.
More specifically, remainer London - so as well as the SW that the LibDems already hold, the places to watch are Camden, Islington, Haringey, Ealing, Merton, Southwark and Lambeth in particular. I'd also expect an uptick in the West London Boroughs although the LDs have very little presence on the ground in Westminster-Kensington-Hammersmith (or Wandsworth, unless Justine joins).
I will be surprised if there are any LibDem gains in London at Labour's expense.The 'Tories Little Helpers' message will be deployed effectively when needed.
Irrelevantly, I fulfilled a lifelong dream by swimming in the sea, no wetsuit, inside the Arctic circle, so the ocean currents are still doing their stuff.
Arctic with no wetsuit !!!
Hats off. I need one for Hampstead Ponds.
There are people who swim all year in The Ponds, breaking the ice to do so in winter if necessary.
QTWTAIN. I lived there for a long time, quite recently. The seat is full of Labour loyalists (not all of them left-wing by any means) plus non-Labour people (including Tories) who like Jeremy as their MP.
Yes, I wasn't being entirely serious re Corbyn (and indeed, downplay the idea three times in the article).
But - and I think this worth noting - I think many aspects of Corbyn's situation illustrate an important point (even if one which might not apply to him for other reasons), and we could potentially see shock Labour losses in an autumn election similar in reverse to their gains in Canterbury or Kensington, where the demographics/politics of an area makes them susceptible to a very large swing against.
Yes - the swings in the national polls are so huge that they are bound to produce astonishing results in various places. That in my view is the main challenge to the Opposition parties - I think there are loads of voters who would readily vote for any of them if they felt they were the clear anti-Tory challenger and had a decent chance of unseating the Conservative MP, but it's going to be har dto work out who the main challenger is, amid a forest of leaflets with misleading bar charts and comparisons to diverse past elections.
I don't think a Remain alliance is all that realistic in terms of candidates actually standing down - the Greens in particular leave it entirely to their constituency parties, where a handful of determined people can insist on standing (which is what went wrong in Broxtowe in 2010). But an informal agreement on who's going to try harder in different places and a certain restraint in deliberatrely misleading bar charts where we know that someone else has a better chance is conceivable. I know from direct contact that that will happen in parts of the southeast, and it was already visible in the local elections if you looked hard enough.
I guess that the various anti-Brexit groups will produce a list of candidates with the best chance of beating no deal Tories in each consitituency and urge people to vote accordingly. No doubt it would include Labour, LD, Green, SNP and PC candidates - perhaps even a few anti-Brexit Tories if any survive to contest the next election.
Will not include the SNP, no need they are the REMAIN party for Scotland
QTWTAIN. I lived there for a long time, quite recently. The seat is full of Labour loyalists (not all of them left-wing by any means) plus non-Labour people (including Tories) who like Jeremy as their MP.
Yes, I wasn't being entirely serious re Corbyn (and indeed, downplay the idea three times in the article).
But - and I think this worth noting - I think many aspects of Corbyn's situation illustrate an important point (even if one which might not apply to him for other reasons), and we could potentially see shock Labour losses in an autumn election similar in reverse to their gains in Canterbury or Kensington, where the demographics/politics of an area makes them susceptible to a very large swing against.
Yes - the swings in the national polls are so huge that they are bound to produce astonishing results in various places. That in my view is the main challenge to the Opposition parties - I think there are loads of voters who would readily vote for any of them if they felt they were the clear anti-Tory challenger and had a decent chance of unseating the Conservative MP, but it's going to be har dto work out who the main challenger is, amid a forest of leaflets with misleading bar charts and comparisons to diverse past elections.
I don't think a Remain alliance is all that realistic in terms of candidates actually standing down - the Greens in particular leave it entirely to their constituency parties, where a handful of determined people can insist on standing (which is what went wrong in Broxtowe in 2010). But an informal agreement on who's going to try harder in different places and a certain restraint in deliberatrely misleading bar charts where we know that someone else has a better chance is conceivable. I know from direct contact that that will happen in parts of the southeast, and it was already visible in the local elections if you looked hard enough.
If Philip Lee defects to lib dems and stands in bracknell what would you hope the local Labour Party would do, I know bracknell going lib dem is quite a stretch but would the Labour Party ease off?
Why would Labour do that in a seat where they polled 30% in 2017 copared with just 7.5% for the LibDems?
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
Do we need a vast bureaucracy and power exercised so remotely in a modern, interconnect world? The idea is so 20th century as to seem quaint.
Surrey County Council employs more people than the EU
It's amazing how the most ardent europhiles don't understand the essential way the EU works. The EU is like the British Raj, it rules a vast space with relatively few people, because it allows the locals to rule themselves - as long as they apply imperial law.
i.e. EU law is enforced by British courts, and British police, and British politicians, in Britain, on British people. In that sense the entire British state is employed by the EU, because EU law is supreme in Britain.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
While Corbyn is unlikely to lose his seat, the broader truth is that the LD revival is going to hit Labour hardest in London. If not in Islington North, there could be some really big majorities overturned elsewhere. It's why the LDs are also right to put their efforts into Uxbridge. The anger at both traditional main parties in this city is palpable.
More specifically, remainer London - so as well as the SW that the LibDems already hold, the places to watch are Camden, Islington, Haringey, Ealing, Merton, Southwark and Lambeth in particular. I'd also expect an uptick in the West London Boroughs although the LDs have very little presence on the ground in Westminster-Kensington-Hammersmith (or Wandsworth, unless Justine joins).
Starmer is safe in Holborn and St Pancras, Tulip Siddiqi shoud be nervous in Hampstead and Kilburn. Lammy is fine in Tottenham, but even with a huge majority the Labour MP for Wood Green & Hornsey (can't remember her name) should definitely be looking over her shoulder.
Johnson means LD can forget it imo.
Those on the left priority is stop Johnson No Deal
Only 1 party can do that.
Plus Swinson is crap Tory voting hypocrite.
I very much doubt Corbyn is going to get an overall majority so a coalition is the best you can probably hope for but how on earth is that ever going to work? The Corbynistas can't abide half their own party let alone anyone else. If ever there was a party totally unsuited to compromise and coalition it has to be Corbyn's Labour. So, in a word, you are f**ed
There are people who swim all year in The Ponds, breaking the ice to do so in winter if necessary.
Yes I know a couple. It's weirdly addictive apparently. Although not in my case - I am happy to do it just very occasionally. My regular swimming takes place in a poncy heated pool.
There are people who swim all year in The Ponds, breaking the ice to do so in winter if necessary.
Yes I know a couple. It's weirdly addictive apparently. Although not in my case - I am happy to do it just very occasionally. My regular swimming takes place in a poncy heated pool.
A sudden plunge in very cold water produces an enormous endorphin high.
So much so, cold water swimming has been proposed as a treatment for depression.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
If, and only if, Boris can get TBP to stand aside Oborne's argument is quite good. The Tories however face a nightmare if this happens with loads of constituencies with big Tory majorities and respected MPs who won't be deselected (mine is an example) who don't and won't support no deal but will stand in the election.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
Your statement is nonsense by any objective measure, Europe is at least as important as any other continent.
What utter nonsense. The concept of "any objective measure" must surely include the most fundamental measure of all: population.
The population of Asia is 4.5bn. The population of the EU is 500m. Asia is NINE TIMES more important. Asia also has a bigger economy (which will only get bigger), does more trade, is much larger by size, blah blah blah
If, and only if, Boris can get TBP to stand aside Oborne's argument is quite good. The Tories however face a nightmare if this happens with loads of constituencies with big Tory majorities and respected MPs who won't be deselected (mine is an example) who don't and won't support no deal but will stand in the election.
Oborne is relying on the assumptions made by so many in 2017 that 2015 UKIP voters would switch en masse to the Tories in those seats they agreed to stand aside. It didn't work . Moreover, such an attempt might even revive the fortunes of UKIP who could put up candidates instead.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
Do we need a vast bureaucracy and power exercised so remotely in a modern, interconnect world? The idea is so 20th century as to seem quaint.
Surrey County Council employs more people than the EU
It's amazing how the most ardent europhiles don't understand the essential way the EU works. The EU is like the British Raj, it rules a vast space with relatively few people, because it allows the locals to rule themselves - as long as they apply imperial law.
i.e. EU law is enforced by British courts, and British police, and British politicians, in Britain, on British people. In that sense the entire British state is employed by the EU, because EU law is supreme in Britain.
No-one knows how the EU works. That's the paradox. You point to Europhiles but on the other side, you had 20- and 30-year veterans saying we must leave in order to make our own trade deals and first stop would be Berlin. Any schoolchild could see that if Britain could not make its own deals then nor could Germany or France.
Several years and umpteen billion wasted because each side has a slogan but neither side knows what it wants, let alone how to get it.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
Your statement is nonsense by any objective measure, Europe is at least as important as any other continent.
What utter nonsense. The concept of "any objective measure" must surely include the most fundamental measure of all: population.
The population of Asia is 4.5bn. The population of the EU is 500m. Asia is NINE TIMES more important. Asia also has a bigger economy (which will only get bigger), does more trade, is much larger by size, blah blah blah
There are 10 billion billion ants on Earth, 7 billion humans. Which are more consequential and significant? Population is not fundamental to significance.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
Do we need a vast bureaucracy and power exercised so remotely in a modern, interconnect world? The idea is so 20th century as to seem quaint.
Surrey County Council employs more people than the EU
It's amazing how the most ardent europhiles don't understand the essential way the EU works. The EU is like the British Raj, it rules a vast space with relatively few people, because it allows the locals to rule themselves - as long as they apply imperial law.
i.e. EU law is enforced by British courts, and British police, and British politicians, in Britain, on British people. In that sense the entire British state is employed by the EU, because EU law is supreme in Britain.
No-one knows how the EU works. That's the paradox. You point to Europhiles but on the other side, you had 20- and 30-year veterans saying we must leave in order to make our own trade deals and first stop would be Berlin. Any schoolchild could see that if Britain could not make its own deals then nor could Germany or France.
Several years and umpteen billion wasted because each side has a slogan but neither side knows what it wants, let alone how to get it.
I know exactly how the EU works. I've just told you.
What is surprising (and here I agree with you) is how many passionate Leavers AND Remainers do not have a clue how the EU operates constitutionally. They either like it, or dislike it, as a matter of instinct. At most they will have a sense how it functions in terms of trade, but the politics is beyond them.
Try asking an ardent Remainer the significance of Factortame, or the acquis, or Eurogendfor. They won't have a clue. Nor will they be able to explain Spitzenkandidat. And so on.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
Your statement is nonsense by any objective measure, Europe is at least as important as any other continent.
What utter nonsense. The concept of "any objective measure" must surely include the most fundamental measure of all: population.
The population of Asia is 4.5bn. The population of the EU is 500m. Asia is NINE TIMES more important. Asia also has a bigger economy (which will only get bigger), does more trade, is much larger by size, blah blah blah
There are 10 billion billion ants on Earth, 7 billion humans. Which are more consequential and significant? Population is not fundamental to significance.
Based on power, economy, population, military and any other metric imagineable Asia trumps Europe.
As does North America.
Either way it doesn't matter. If you believe its a modern, interconnected world then Europe or Asia shouldn't matter we can be part of that world, not a mere continent.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
Your statement is nonsense by any objective measure, Europe is at least as important as any other continent.
What utter nonsense. The concept of "any objective measure" must surely include the most fundamental measure of all: population.
The population of Asia is 4.5bn. The population of the EU is 500m. Asia is NINE TIMES more important. Asia also has a bigger economy (which will only get bigger), does more trade, is much larger by size, blah blah blah
There are 10 billion billion ants on Earth, 7 billion humans. Which are more consequential and significant? Population is not fundamental to significance.
If, and only if, Boris can get TBP to stand aside Oborne's argument is quite good. The Tories however face a nightmare if this happens with loads of constituencies with big Tory majorities and respected MPs who won't be deselected (mine is an example) who don't and won't support no deal but will stand in the election.
Oborne is relying on the assumptions made by so many in 2017 that 2015 UKIP voters would switch en masse to the Tories in those seats they agreed to stand aside. It didn't work . Moreover, such an attempt might even revive the fortunes of UKIP who could put up candidates instead.
Labour was at the time standing on an unambiguous 'Leave' ticket and in the middle of the Corbyn cult. Goodness knows what their ticket will be this time, but it won't be 'Leave' and it won't involve uncritical Corbyn mania. It wasn't a low Tory vote that caused TM her problems but the high Labour one.
A recovery of UKIP is not impossible I suppose, but no evidence supports it, and all their talent, such as it was, has drained away.
Mr. Palmer, they should've axed May then (or earlier). Had they done so, I think Boris would've failed to succeed her.
Is there a better modern parable on cowardice than the Tories' refusal to dump May?
Is cowardice the right word, or was it plain stupidity? After the GE2017 debacle, the 1922 banged on their desks in support of Theresa May. Later they did not put in anonymous letters; later still they supported her in a confidence vote. Courage was not needed.
It was stupidity not cowardice. Hell, even members' self-interest should have seen May out.
If, and only if, Boris can get TBP to stand aside Oborne's argument is quite good. The Tories however face a nightmare if this happens with loads of constituencies with big Tory majorities and respected MPs who won't be deselected (mine is an example) who don't and won't support no deal but will stand in the election.
Oborne is relying on the assumptions made by so many in 2017 that 2015 UKIP voters would switch en masse to the Tories in those seats they agreed to stand aside. It didn't work . Moreover, such an attempt might even revive the fortunes of UKIP who could put up candidates instead.
Labour was at the time standing on an unambiguous 'Leave' ticket and in the middle of the Corbyn cult. Goodness knows what their ticket will be this time, but it won't be 'Leave' and it won't involve uncritical Corbyn mania. It wasn't a low Tory vote that caused TM her problems but the high Labour one.
A recovery of UKIP is not impossible I suppose, but no evidence supports it, and all their talent, such as it was, has drained away.
I think their current position is that they will renegotiate a better Withdrawal Agreement, and then hold a referendum in which they will advise people to vote against it.
Utterly deluded. These people are off their heads with this nonsense. They just can't accept a modern, interconnected world.
I believe in a modern, interconnected world.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
Your statement is nonsense by any objective measure, Europe is at least as important as any other continent.
What utter nonsense. The concept of "any objective measure" must surely include the most fundamental measure of all: population.
The population of Asia is 4.5bn. The population of the EU is 500m. Asia is NINE TIMES more important. Asia also has a bigger economy (which will only get bigger), does more trade, is much larger by size, blah blah blah
There are 10 billion billion ants on Earth, 7 billion humans. Which are more consequential and significant? Population is not fundamental to significance.
I am not bigly into pc witchfinding, but I would hate to be given the job of explaining that there is absolutely nothing racist about that analogy.
Mr. Palmer, they should've axed May then (or earlier). Had they done so, I think Boris would've failed to succeed her.
Is there a better modern parable on cowardice than the Tories' refusal to dump May?
Is cowardice the right word, or was it plain stupidity? After the GE2017 debacle, the 1922 banged on their desks in support of Theresa May. Later they did not put in anonymous letters; later still they supported her in a confidence vote. Courage was not needed.
It was stupidity not cowardice. Hell, even members' self-interest should have seen May out.
As with the EU and Brexit, as with Conservatives and Labour landing themselves with lazy, shambolic race-baiting leaders, as with American Republicans and Democrats losing to Trump, we are cursed with a generation of politicians who know damn all about politics (or anything else, come to that).
I want to support the Lib Dems, I *do* support the Lib Dems, but they need to get their shit together. There is no time to lose.
They need to be hammering just two messages:
1. Labour is enabling a No Deal Brexit
2. Lib Dem’s single minded policy is to enable a government of national unity which will call a referendum on an impartial, fully and fairly explained “Remain” and “Brexit”.
Oh and they need to junk the university fees, or find some other formula that means we are not saddling an entire generation with debts of up to £100k upon graduation. It’s their Clause 4.
If, and only if, Boris can get TBP to stand aside Oborne's argument is quite good. The Tories however face a nightmare if this happens with loads of constituencies with big Tory majorities and respected MPs who won't be deselected (mine is an example) who don't and won't support no deal but will stand in the election.
Oborne is relying on the assumptions made by so many in 2017 that 2015 UKIP voters would switch en masse to the Tories in those seats they agreed to stand aside. It didn't work . Moreover, such an attempt might even revive the fortunes of UKIP who could put up candidates instead.
Labour was at the time standing on an unambiguous 'Leave' ticket and in the middle of the Corbyn cult. Goodness knows what their ticket will be this time, but it won't be 'Leave' and it won't involve uncritical Corbyn mania. It wasn't a low Tory vote that caused TM her problems but the high Labour one.
A recovery of UKIP is not impossible I suppose, but no evidence supports it, and all their talent, such as it was, has drained away.
There was no Corbyn cult in April 2017 - he was seen as a serious liability until he started campaigning in earnest.Moreover - it was not a Brexit election at all, and I seriously doubt that an election this October /November will be much different. There are already signs in the polls that Johnson is proving an effective recruiting sergeant for Labour.
Comments
That context would be pols being allowed to spout any old populist shite without being pulled up about it later presumably.
There, you've just gone and captured the essence of 'Johnsonism', you have!
Oh wait. No they haven't. In fact, they've actively opposed No Confidencing the government because they're frit of losing a few seats.
If the LibDems were run by someone competent - like Shirley Williams of old or Chris Huhne or maybe even Nick Clegg - then this message (of Labour enabling a Tory No Deal Brexit) would be being hammered on every talk show, every leaflet, every news broadcast.
Fortunately for the Labour Party, the LibDems are almost as incompetent as they are.
My first flat was on the Archway Road.
I note she also wants to reverse the policy on tolerance towards drug possession again. So much for the speculation about the move towards legalising cannabis.
Just saying "this is horrid" achieves nothing.
1) Bring down this wretched government
2) Organise a remain alliance at the GE
3) Secure Remain majority
4) Revoke Article 50
From the point of view of BT, they would save a huge amount of money. There would be no analog lines to "switch", so they would free up real estate in traditional exchanges, they wouldn't need to pay maintenance on a whole bunch of legacy hardware. Of course, they'd become ever more "utility", but that'a price worth paying.
https://twitter.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1157401817191473153?s=20
We weren't charged more for superior digital telehone exchanges after BT was privatised and they went in faster by order of the regulator. The quality of service went up and the price stayed fairly stable. It was regulated of course, instead of having >100 providers and 5,000 tariffs.
The EU - 55,000 employees
I'm also reckoning - and I'm just going out on a limb here - that Surrey's employees trend cheaper than the EU's.
Seven years seems like a reasonable estimate of time horizons. As long as we actually, you know, started the work rather than just talking about it.
Irrelevantly, I fulfilled a lifelong dream by swimming in the sea, no wetsuit, inside the Arctic circle, so the ocean currents are still doing their stuff.
The LDs are not a serious political force because - at least in part - they're not run professionally. Every LibDem MP should be working 100 hour weeks, mixing fund raising and media events. They are the "pro Remain" force, so why aren't they shaking down big business? Why aren't there weekly City events where cheque books are gotten out?
In particular, trying to get defections, and working hard to try and put together a GE alliance with Plaid and the Greens to maximum benefit. These circumstances might not recur again and it could be very good for the yellows.
With both main parties under toxic (to many) leaders and repelling moderates by the bucket load, plus the golden opportunity to front the increasingly powerful Remain brand, if a general election comes in the current circumstances, Brexit not delivered and thus still up for grabs, one's mouth waters / one dreads to think (delete to taste) what Jo and the yellows could achieve. Balance of power at the very least.
Such a turnaround. And so swift too. As recently as last year, their horizons did not extend much beyond building speed bumps.
To paraphrase Sir Alex Ferguson - "Hard to believe! Politics. Bloody Hell."
Hats off. I need one for Hampstead Ponds.
If “why” isn’t a rhetorical question, then I’d contend that the answer is the post-Coalition collapse and the hollowing out of everything in the LDs other than the basic local campaigning function. That explains rather than excuses, but for a party widely believed to be at death’s door under six months ago, it’s not surprising that ramping up is taking some time.
(Quote missing because, however shitty our parties may be, Vanilla is shittier. Providing n characters of quoted text then saying “oh sorry, you can’t post n characters” is pure UX fail, and trimming long quotes individually is almost impossible on a small phone screen.)
Nobody remembers the ones she lost.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7316585/PETER-OBORNE-believe-Boris-isnt-chicken-hold-snap-election.html
Neither's a good showing.
i.e. EU law is enforced by British courts, and British police, and British politicians, in Britain, on British people. In that sense the entire British state is employed by the EU, because EU law is supreme in Britain.
The EU is not the world. It is Little Europe, one of the least consequential and insignificant continents in the 21st century that we simply happen to be located within. But since the world is now so interconnected we don't need to bother with little Europe when there's a big wide interconnected world out there.
So much so, cold water swimming has been proposed as a treatment for depression.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45487187
The EU has 4 of the top 10 in economic terms https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/
The EU has 3 of the top 10 in military terms https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
Your statement is nonsense by any objective measure, Europe is at least as important as any other continent.
The population of Asia is 4.5bn. The population of the EU is 500m. Asia is NINE TIMES more important. Asia also has a bigger economy (which will only get bigger), does more trade, is much larger by size, blah blah blah
Several years and umpteen billion wasted because each side has a slogan but neither side knows what it wants, let alone how to get it.
OK, us and France.
But the reality is that we're shit, the French are only slightly less shit, and everyone else is utterly inconsequential shit.
What is surprising (and here I agree with you) is how many passionate Leavers AND Remainers do not have a clue how the EU operates constitutionally. They either like it, or dislike it, as a matter of instinct. At most they will have a sense how it functions in terms of trade, but the politics is beyond them.
Try asking an ardent Remainer the significance of Factortame, or the acquis, or Eurogendfor. They won't have a clue. Nor will they be able to explain Spitzenkandidat. And so on.
As does North America.
Either way it doesn't matter. If you believe its a modern, interconnected world then Europe or Asia shouldn't matter we can be part of that world, not a mere continent.
A recovery of UKIP is not impossible I suppose, but no evidence supports it, and all their talent, such as it was, has drained away.
It was stupidity not cowardice. Hell, even members' self-interest should have seen May out.
You are officially a prat.
I dunno about 50, @Byronic, I'm doubtful if we can get 30 ahead here.
Edit - I'm even more doubtful now.
Yes, we all know Europe is in relative decline. So is the USA. That, in itself, tells us nothing about the merits or otherwise of staying in the EU.
There’s not a single Brexit argument that stacks up when you poke at it with a sharp enough stick.
Moeen Ali 'plays' the worst non shot I've ever seen.
Woakes can bat, but on this turning pitch with only Bairstow for company...can't see a big lead here.
And remember we're a bowler light.
I want to support the Lib Dems, I *do* support the Lib Dems, but they need to get their shit together. There is no time to lose.
They need to be hammering just two messages:
1. Labour is enabling a No Deal Brexit
2. Lib Dem’s single minded policy is to enable a government of national unity which will call a referendum on an impartial, fully and fairly explained “Remain” and “Brexit”.
Oh and they need to junk the university fees, or find some other formula that means we are not saddling an entire generation with debts of up to £100k upon graduation. It’s their Clause 4.
Think that but with a spinner.
Oh YJB what are you doing to me.
DavidL should be force fed 50 Hawaiian pizzas while drinking blue wine and listening to Boris Johnson's Parliamentary speeches on a loop.
Umm, actually...