In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
This is a really excellent post, because it exposes the vast gap between what people imagine Labour policy to be and what it actually is. It's still a pretty absurd fudge that would arguably harm the cause of remain. They've been dragged kicking an screaming to a second referendum, but if they were to be voted in, can anyone imagine them backing remain and winning it? At the best of times Corbyn is a bad campaigner for the EU - even if you think on balance he'd rather remain, he cannot bring himself, nor can his allies at the top of Labour, to argue for the positive aspects of the EU that the public might agree with, because he simply doesn't see them as positives. He's even fairly ambivalent on free movement of people. In a referendum, would an almost certainly unpopular Corbyn government, which didn't want to push what most people see as the positive aspects of the EU (stability, security, opportunity), be able to win?
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
But most of them would have spoken in similar terms in April 2017. I know of a couple of LD members who were taken aback at how close Labour came to winning their seats from the Tories in 2017, and who will be voting Labour tactically next time.
This is a really excellent post, because it exposes the vast gap between what people imagine Labour policy to be and what it actually is. It's still a pretty absurd fudge that would arguably harm the cause of remain. They've been dragged kicking an screaming to a second referendum, but if they were to be voted in, can anyone imagine them backing remain and winning it? At the best of times Corbyn is a bad campaigner for the EU - even if you think on balance he'd rather remain, he cannot bring himself, nor can his allies at the top of Labour, to argue for the positive aspects of the EU that the public might agree with, because he simply doesn't see them as positives. He's even fairly ambivalent on free movement of people. In a referendum, would an almost certainly unpopular Corbyn government, which didn't want to push what most people see as the positive aspects of the EU (stability, security, opportunity), be able to win?
Why do you think the public would choose a super soft Brexit over Remain?
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
Well thousands have just voted for a racist.
Millions of voters in London disagree with your asinine suggestion.....
This is a really excellent post, because it exposes the vast gap between what people imagine Labour policy to be and what it actually is. It's still a pretty absurd fudge that would arguably harm the cause of remain. They've been dragged kicking an screaming to a second referendum, but if they were to be voted in, can anyone imagine them backing remain and winning it? At the best of times Corbyn is a bad campaigner for the EU - even if you think on balance he'd rather remain, he cannot bring himself, nor can his allies at the top of Labour, to argue for the positive aspects of the EU that the public might agree with, because he simply doesn't see them as positives. He's even fairly ambivalent on free movement of people. In a referendum, would an almost certainly unpopular Corbyn government, which didn't want to push what most people see as the positive aspects of the EU (stability, security, opportunity), be able to win?
Corbyn might sit back and take a largely detached view - as did Harold Wilson in 1975.
The question for me is whether Manchester will be anything more than a Johnson rally and love-in or whether Conservatives opposed to a No Deal Brexit will be given any kind of platform beyond a fringe meeting or two.
Being opposed to a No Deal Brexit does not equate as being opposed to Brexit by any means - there are Conservatives who would be happy with the existing WA, others who don't like the existing WA but would accept a revised WA (perhaps with the backstop removed a la Brady) and Conservatives who are opposed to any WA and want to leave irrespective of the consequences.
So Johnson isn't preaching to a united choir - he can also see that, Kantar notwithstanding, the split of the Leave bloc vote is around 31-14 which only provides comfort if you rely on USE-less UNS which will be especially irrelevant in a four-party scenario. While there has undoubtedly been a recovery in Conservative fortunes since Johnson became Prime Minister, going to the country is a real gamble and the 2017 experience would tend to a cautious approach.
Holding a GE in the immediate euphoric aftermath of leaving the EU might be attractive but the window of opportunity may be narrow. Even if Johnson prevails, the immediate economic impact and consequences are likely to make his post-GE honeymoon short and 2020 might be a very rough year for the Conservative Government as the economy adjusts to the shock of leaving the EU.
That of course still gives Johnson four years to hope the post-EU future is as rosy as has been painted before a 2024 contest which may look very different to 2019.
Alternatively, as I've argued, Johnson can hope the disunity of the opposition will prove his greatest asset allowing us to leave on 31/10 and he will then have to weather the storm and hope by 2022 all will be better and he can secure his GE win and he will be aided by the continuing presence of Corbyn and the end of BP.
There is the other scenario where we leave on 31/10, Johnson goes to the country and loses. Perhaps that's something else to consider.
The first sentence was moot. Your vision of them being lightweights, non-entities and fools says more about your partisan politics than it does about how capable or not the cabinet is.
What is revolting?
Vision of England.
Is all the shared history really that good? Was the union of the British Empire in fact a model of an English Empire, Welsh, Irish, Scots subjects of the English rather th right now leaving us with something less good, more petty nationalism than a union that is strong common wealth of nations?
None of the people who secretly hope Ireland will one day rejoin the UK ever seem to do any thought how to reform the UK into a membership organisation that anyone would want to join.
In the post-imperial Europe of the EU, does the UK union serve any purpose anymore? Why would Scotland not be better off as a full member state of the EU in its own right?
Such a troll.
Anyway Scot nats always tell us they want "Freeeedom" - yest strangely they willing to be subsumed into the EU.
Why is that?
That's a killer point which I've never seen made before.
Diddies on the internet always tell us Nats want "Freeeedom". All it tells is that people who use the word "Freeeedom" are diddies.
what you actually mean is you can't square that particular circle can you.
Now your follow up is explain to us how us leaving the EU will be a disaster but Scotland leaving the UK will be a walk in the park.
The UK isn’t a membership organisation that you can leave. Scottish independence is a transfer of sovereignty, which is conceptually totally different from Brexit in which there is no transfer of sovereignty.
The tedious patter this observation usually invokes revolves around how the wise, benevolent UK is is in a continuing process of devolving powers to its constituent parts while the centralising, repressive EU is ripping sovereignty away from its members with ever closer union. Then you post links to Westminster proposals to take back devolved powers to get through Brexit and how devolved funding will be reallocated to Westminster and have Union flags stamped on it. Then they shut up.
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
Well thousands have just voted for a racist.
Millions of voters in London disagree with your asinine suggestion.....
Hardly they just like a proven liar, as you do I guess.
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
But most of them would have spoken in similar terms in April 2017. I know of a couple of LD members who were taken aback at how close Labour came to winning their seats from the Tories in 2017, and who will be voting Labour tactically next time.
Don't you think that 2017 was the high point for Corbyn?
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
That's activists. I question whether he really has his finger on the pulse of the Lib Dem voter base, because he claimed that Corbyn was so toxic to LD voters that they'd rather have No Deal than Corbyn PM.
The question for me is whether Manchester will be anything more than a Johnson rally and love-in or whether Conservatives opposed to a No Deal Brexit will be given any kind of platform beyond a fringe meeting or two.
I think we all know the answer to that. Everything BJ does is calibrated to prevent or hinder a 20th July plot by the tory remainers. See also: that 30 days nonsense he made up.
On odd days of the week perhaps and only depending on who you talk to.
The policy is Ref2 and Ref2 means Remain.
Thus Labour are Remain. QED.
Of course the PARTY are split. But so what? That is just the way it is on this issue. There are members and supporters on both sides. Ditto with the Cons.
Problem is they are like skimmed Remain, and these days a lot of people prefer the full fat version
(I apologise in advance to any lactose intolerant vegans who may be been triggered by my remarks)
The first sentence was moot. Your vision of them being lightweights, non-entities and fools says more about your partisan politics than it does about how capable or not the cabinet is.
What is revolting?
Vision of England.
Is all the shared history really that good? Was the union of the British Empire in fact a model of an English Empire, Welsh, Irish, Scots subjects of the English rather th right now leaving us with something less good, more petty nationalism than a union that is strong common wealth of nations?
None of the people who secretly hope Ireland will one day rejoin the UK ever seem to do any thought how to reform the UK into a membership organisation that anyone would want to join.
In the post-imperial Europe of the EU, does the UK union serve any purpose anymore? Why would Scotland not be better off as a full member state of the EU in its own right?
Such a troll.
Anyway Scot nats always tell us they want "Freeeedom" - yest strangely they willing to be subsumed into the EU.
Why is that?
That's a killer point which I've never seen made before.
Diddies on the internet always tell us Nats want "Freeeedom". All it tells is that people who use the word "Freeeedom" are diddies.
what you actually mean is you can't square that particular circle can you.
Now your follow up is explain to us how us leaving the EU will be a disaster but Scotland leaving the UK will be a walk in the park.
The UK isn’t a membership organisation that you can leave. Scottish independence is a transfer of sovereignty, which is conceptually totally different from Brexit in which there is no transfer of sovereignty.
The acquis isn’t static in the EU - the ECJ is always minded to expand the remit, which QMV also means that we don’t have control over our own destiny
That is very different to, say, NATO where we have agreed to a set of static commitments
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
But most of them would have spoken in similar terms in April 2017. I know of a couple of LD members who were taken aback at how close Labour came to winning their seats from the Tories in 2017, and who will be voting Labour tactically next time.
Don't you think that 2017 was the high point for Corbyn?
I have no idea - April 2017 certainly was not his high point.
There is no pooling in the UK, just look at current status, it is a dictatorship. Scotland voted for a second referendum , parliament majority and yet some balloon in Westminster says NO. Nothing pooled in the UK, it is a one way street.
Back in London after my Fourth Scottish Expedition (phase 1). Added Ayr to Stranraer, Croy to Dundee via Perth, Perth to Aviemore, plus Strathspey Railway (Aviemore to Broomhill). Phase 2 to follow in a couple of weeks.
hope you got some decent weather, has been pretty bad recently
This is a really excellent post, because it exposes the vast gap between what people imagine Labour policy to be and what it actually is. It's still a pretty absurd fudge that would arguably harm the cause of remain. They've been dragged kicking an screaming to a second referendum, but if they were to be voted in, can anyone imagine them backing remain and winning it? At the best of times Corbyn is a bad campaigner for the EU - even if you think on balance he'd rather remain, he cannot bring himself, nor can his allies at the top of Labour, to argue for the positive aspects of the EU that the public might agree with, because he simply doesn't see them as positives. He's even fairly ambivalent on free movement of people. In a referendum, would an almost certainly unpopular Corbyn government, which didn't want to push what most people see as the positive aspects of the EU (stability, security, opportunity), be able to win?
Corbyn might sit back and take a largely detached view - as did Harold Wilson in 1975.
Then remain would lose - and it would likely destroy Labour. If Labour's campaigning machinery, and its leading figures, refuse to take a view, then the campaign is screwed. In 1975 Thatcher was strongly in favour of in and campaigned for it. In a new referendum, the Tories would be throwing all their campaigning and media weight behind out. Unlike in 2016, remain can hardly run an insurgent "pox on all of you" campaign.
Which is why Corbyn would never be able to be neutral. He'd be savaged for it. But what he would do is something similar to 2016, campaigning for a side (in) while trying to avoid getting his hands dirty. Which again would be a disaster.
That brings me to my main point, how do Corbyn-supporting remainers square the two? When Labour's strategy is so "meh", necessarily because of who its leader is and what he believes? It's a recipe for another disaster.
Yet an article the other day said dozens of mini-deals had already been done.
Dozens of mini deals have already been done.
File under MRDA.
Have they? Do we know this for a fact and are they 100% legally water tight?
Let’s say they don’t apply.
Post no deal we want to fly planes
Do you think the EU is going to stop us flying planes while the CAA is readmitted to the IATA (I think that’s the International rule setter).
If not, then a mini deal has been done
If so, then that is an unbelievable hostile act to a friendly nation and close neighbour. As Chris Grayling told me (although a Cabinet Minister should be more careful with his language) it would be “tantamount to an act of war”
Lined up on one side of this debate (anti-mass starvation, anti-children dying) are Jess Phillips, Ian Murray and others. On the other side are the great Brexit maniacs, who just want as many people as possible to starve in order that they may more freely travel around the world in their gold lifts. Or something.
The first sentence was moot. Your vision of them being lightweights, non-entities and fools says more about your partisan politics than it does about how capable or not the cabinet is.
What is revolting?
Vision of England.
Is all the shared history really that good? Was the union of the British Empire in fact a model of an English Empire, Welsh, Irish, Scots subjects of the English rather th right now leaving us with something less good, more petty nationalism than a union that is strong common wealth of nations?
None of the people who secretly hope Ireland will one day rejoin the UK ever seem to do any thought how to reform the UK into a membership organisation that anyone would want to join.
In the post-imperial Europe of the EU, does the UK union serve any purpose anymore? Why would Scotland not be better off as a full member state of the EU in its own right?
Such a troll.
Anyway Scot nats always tell us they want "Freeeedom" - yest strangely they willing to be subsumed into the EU.
Why is that?
That's a killer point which I've never seen made before.
Diddies on the internet always tell us Nats want "Freeeedom". All it tells is that people who use the word "Freeeedom" are diddies.
what you actually mean is you can't square that particular circle can you.
Now your follow up is explain to us how us leaving the EU will be a disaster but Scotland leaving the UK will be a walk in the park.
The UK isn’t a membership organisation that you can leave. Scottish independence is a transfer of sovereignty, which is conceptually totally different from Brexit in which there is no transfer of sovereignty.
The tedious patter this observation usually invokes revolves around how the wise, benevolent UK is is in a continuing process of devolving powers to its constituent parts while the centralising, repressive EU is ripping sovereignty away from its members with ever closer union. Then you post links to Westminster proposals to take back devolved powers to get through Brexit and how devolved funding will be reallocated to Westminster and have Union flags stamped on it. Then they shut up.
TUD, unfortunately they rarely shut up , they just keep talking tripe. We see it here regularly , opinions formed from Hollywood Movies and the likes of the Daily Heil.
This is a really excellent post, because it exposes the vast gap between what people imagine Labour policy to be and what it actually is. It's still a pretty absurd fudge that would arguably harm the cause of remain. They've been dragged kicking an screaming to a second referendum, but if they were to be voted in, can anyone imagine them backing remain and winning it? At the best of times Corbyn is a bad campaigner for the EU - even if you think on balance he'd rather remain, he cannot bring himself, nor can his allies at the top of Labour, to argue for the positive aspects of the EU that the public might agree with, because he simply doesn't see them as positives. He's even fairly ambivalent on free movement of people. In a referendum, would an almost certainly unpopular Corbyn government, which didn't want to push what most people see as the positive aspects of the EU (stability, security, opportunity), be able to win?
Corbyn might sit back and take a largely detached view - as did Harold Wilson in 1975.
Then remain would lose - and it would likely destroy Labour. If Labour's campaigning machinery, and its leading figures, refuse to take a view, then the campaign is screwed. In 1975 Thatcher was strongly in favour of in and campaigned for it. In a new referendum, the Tories would be throwing all their campaigning and media weight behind out. Unlike in 2016, remain can hardly run an insurgent "pox on all of you" campaign.
Which is why Corbyn would never be able to be neutral. He'd be savaged for it. But what he would do is something similar to 2016, campaigning for a side (in) while trying to avoid getting his hands dirty. Which again would be a disaster.
That brings me to my main point, how do Corbyn-supporting remainers square the two? When Labour's strategy is so "meh", necessarily because of who its leader is and what he believes? It's a recipe for another disaster.
Then remain would lose - and it would likely destroy Labour. If Labour's campaigning machinery, and its leading figures, refuse to take a view, then the campaign is screwed. In 1975 Thatcher was strongly in favour of in and campaigned for it. In a new referendum, the Tories would be throwing all their campaigning and media weight behind out. Unlike in 2016, remain can hardly run an insurgent "pox on all of you" campaign.
Which is why Corbyn would never be able to be neutral. He'd be savaged for it. But what he would do is something similar to 2016, campaigning for a side (in) while trying to avoid getting his hands dirty. Which again would be a disaster.
That brings me to my main point, how do Corbyn-supporting remainers square the two? When Labour's strategy is so "meh", necessarily because of who its leader is and what he believes? It's a recipe for another disaster.
The Leave option will be CU membership and very close alignment to the SM.
Why would the Tories (let alone Farage and Co) be throwing their full weight behind that?
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
But most of them would have spoken in similar terms in April 2017. I know of a couple of LD members who were taken aback at how close Labour came to winning their seats from the Tories in 2017, and who will be voting Labour tactically next time.
Don't you think that 2017 was the high point for Corbyn?
I have no idea - April 2017 certainly was not his high point.
I think the Labour party should be applauded for still using a traditional conference location in Brighton.
There was something unpleasant and non-conservative about the Conservatives choosing to alternate their conferences between Birmingham and Manchester.
Why?
Given the scale of these events and the security needs an easily accessible big city is to be preferred.
Both Birmingham and Manchester make more sense than Brighton or Blackpool
Are you saying the size and security requirements have changed in the last decade compared to the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s ?
That sounds deeply unlikely to me.
Perhaps its more the Conservatives now prefer their conferences to be in settings as similar to central London as they can find.
Yes
So the Conservatives prefer their conferences to be in settings as similar to central London as they can find.
No. Conferences are big and more glitzy. Blackpool doesn’t have the facilities and infrastructure to support it.
In any event the Midlands/Manchester have more target marginals than the North West or South Coast.
Sometimes it’s just a game of incremental improvements not some grand conspiracy
So conferences are now 'big and glitzy'.
:rolls eyes:
We know your knowledge of geography is a little hazy but its quite something to claim that there are more marginals in Manchester than the North West.
For that matter there are more marginals in Blackpool alone than Manchester.
And if its concentration of marginals which matter than how about holding the conference in Stoke.
The greater Manchester conurbation
You need a combination of a big city with a sizeable venue, plenty of accommodation, good communications (otherwise you won’t get the media attending) and marginals
They will assess venues on a variety measures. It’s not just “I like big cities”
I think the Labour party should be applauded for still using a traditional conference location in Brighton.
There was something unpleasant and non-conservative about the Conservatives choosing to alternate their conferences between Birmingham and Manchester.
Why?
Given the scale of these events and the security needs an easily accessible big city is to be preferred.
Both Birmingham and Manchester make more sense than Brighton or Blackpool
Are you saying the size and security requirements have changed in the last decade compared to the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s ?
That sounds deeply unlikely to me.
Perhaps its more the Conservatives now prefer their conferences to be in settings as similar to central London as they can find.
Yes
So the Conservatives prefer their conferences to be in settings as similar to central London as they can find.
No. Conferences are big and more glitzy. Blackpool doesn’t have the facilities and infrastructure to support it.
In any event the Midlands/Manchester have more target marginals than the North West or South Coast.
Sometimes it’s just a game of incremental improvements not some grand conspiracy
And I believe May committed Government spending on renovating the Winter Gardens (or a brand new conference centre, can't remember which) largely so the Tories coild return to Blackpool.
I think the Labour party should be applauded for still using a traditional conference location in Brighton.
There was something unpleasant and non-conservative about the Conservatives choosing to alternate their conferences between Birmingham and Manchester.
Why?
Given the scale of these events and the security needs an easily accessible big city is to be preferred.
Both Birmingham and Manchester make more sense than Brighton or Blackpool
Are you saying the size and security requirements have changed in the last decade compared to the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s ?
That sounds deeply unlikely to me.
Perhaps its more the Conservatives now prefer their conferences to be in settings as similar to central London as they can find.
Yes
So the Conservatives prefer their conferences to be in settings as similar to central London as they can find.
No. Conferences are big and more glitzy. Blackpool doesn’t have the facilities and infrastructure to support it.
In any event the Midlands/Manchester have more target marginals than the North West or South Coast.
Sometimes it’s just a game of incremental improvements not some grand conspiracy
So conferences are now 'big and glitzy'.
:rolls eyes:
We know your knowledge of geography is a little hazy but its quite something to claim that there are more marginals in Manchester than the North West.
For that matter there are more marginals in Blackpool alone than Manchester.
And if its concentration of marginals which matter than how about holding the conference in Stoke.
The greater Manchester conurbation
You need a combination of a big city with a sizeable venue, plenty of accommodation, good communications (otherwise you won’t get the media attending) and marginals
They will assess venues on a variety measures. It’s not just “I like big cities”
So how did the Conservatives manage up to 2007 when they went to Brighton and Bournemouth and Blackpool ?
Are you saying that accommodation or communication capabilities have declined since then ?
Because I very much doubt it.
And how are the LibDems and TUC managing at Bournemouth this year and Labour in Brighton ?
You could also explain how this 'hold the conference in a big city and it will help in the local marginals' strategy is supposed to work.
Because looking at the actual election results it doesn't seem to.
Do you really think someone in Bolton is more likely to vote Conservative because they had their conference in Manchester ?
In an election campaign I expect the vast majority of 2017 Labour voters who switched to the LDs and the Greens in the run up to the EU election to return to Labour.
Talk to OGH. He represents chatter on the dinner party circuit, that won't wash voting for anti-semites....
But most of them would have spoken in similar terms in April 2017. I know of a couple of LD members who were taken aback at how close Labour came to winning their seats from the Tories in 2017, and who will be voting Labour tactically next time.
Don't you think that 2017 was the high point for Corbyn?
I have no idea - April 2017 certainly was not his high point.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
Not really - I genuinely don't know! The experience of 2017 makes it difficult to call. I do expect the combined two-party vote to decline from the circa 85% reached then - as a result of a stronger performance by the LDs and the Brexit Party when compared with UKIP's 2017 vote share. I currently expect both to poll circa 12%.
If Boris Johnson goes down as Mr No Deal, then you will go down as Mr Shit Negotiator who got the EU to No Deal, Mr. Tusk.....
Tusk's not the negotiator. Barnier is. Am I missing something here?
How much autonomy do you think Barnier has?
Similar question: how much autonomy do you think Tusk has? The driver in both cases is EUCO. I don't think Tusk has command privileges over Barnier, as Tusk is more a speaker for the will of the Council rather than the driver of it.
I know people don't want to hear this - and I apologise in advance - but England can win from here.
I'm on at 7.6 and will be laying back at 3 when they reach 240 for 5.
Now 15. Decided not to top up.
I am on at 10.
I would want the 500/1 the Australians reputedly got for the other famous Headingley test....
Meantime, this is an exceptional stat - only one man, in all of test history - New Zealand's Ken Rutherford - has opened the batting in as many Test innings as Jason Roy with an average lower than his 8.85...
I used to attend Liberal Assemblies and Lib Dem Conferences in the 80s and 90s.
The old Liberal Assemblies were in places like Harrogate, Eastbourne and Llandudno and were enjoyable occasions without intruding too much on the consciousness of anyone not very interested. The towns were glad of the guests at the end of the season and I always found a nice B&B or small hotel to stay which was within walking distance of the conference venue.
Security was non existent and there was an air of convivial irrelevance about the whole thing though the coming of the Alliance brought the sharp edge of SDP professionalism into proceedings and the evolution of Conference into a showcase for the party and an opportunity to network began to evolve.
Not so very different to Labour's position before the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - hold a Referendum.
If we do get Ref2 under Labour I expect the Leave option to be Norway Plus. If so, it is almost impossible to see it winning. Remainers will mostly prefer Remain and all of those Leavers who think the May Deal is 'not Brexit' are unlikely to think something even less pure is worth campaigning and voting for.
Low turnout, probably, and a result something like the following -
REMAIN - 18, 574, 831 LEAVE - Nick Boles and Richard Tyndall
So how did the Conservatives manage up to 2007 when they went to Brighton and Bournemouth and Blackpool ?
Are you saying that accommodation or communication capabilities have declined since then ?
Because I very much doubt it.
And how are the LibDems and TUC managing at Bournemouth this year and Labour in Brighton ?
You could also explain how this 'hold the conference in a big city and it will help in the local marginals' strategy is supposed to work.
Because looking at the actual election results it doesn't seem to.
Do you really think someone in Bolton is more likely to vote Conservative because they had their conference in Manchester ?
Well they are refurbishing the Winter Gardens in Blackpool to host big conferences so presumably the council has decided it’s not up scratch.
As for the local marginal strategy it’s about local media coverage
I don’t know why they changed. And I don’t really care. But I highly doubt it fits into your grievance narrative. Many of the points you make are good and missed by others. Here you are off target.
But may be we should go back to the original question you never answered. Why is it “unpleasant and unconservative” rather than pragmatic for the Tories to change
The issue with the backstop, it now seems to me, isn't the viability of the alternative arrangements, but of the arbitrary nature of the EU's ability to activate the backstop. It is this that needs to be replaced either with third party arbitration (which is a non starter, as there is no organisation capable that would have the faith of both parties), or with a series of objectively demonstrable commitments, entered into by the UK. So what really needs to happen is for the EU to provide a list of their criteria. It is then for the UK, if we consider all the criteria to be reasonable, to suggest benchmarks and agree on these with the EU.
The issue with the backstop, it now seems to me, isn't the viability of the alternative arrangements, but of the arbitrary nature of the EU's ability to activate the backstop. It is this that needs to be replaced either with third party arbitration (which is a non starter, as there is no organisation capable that would have the faith of both parties), or with a series of objectively demonstrable commitments, entered into by the UK. So what really needs to happen is for the EU to provide a list of their criteria. It is then for the UK, if we consider all the criteria to be reasonable, to suggest benchmarks and agree on these with the EU.
The UK has already agreed this in the joint report and the subsequent mapping exercise.
The issue with the backstop, it now seems to me, isn't the viability of the alternative arrangements, but of the arbitrary nature of the EU's ability to activate the backstop. It is this that needs to be replaced either with third party arbitration (which is a non starter, as there is no organisation capable that would have the faith of both parties), or with a series of objectively demonstrable commitments, entered into by the UK. So what really needs to happen is for the EU to provide a list of their criteria. It is then for the UK, if we consider all the criteria to be reasonable, to suggest benchmarks and agree on these with the EU.
The UK has already agreed this in the joint report and the subsequent mapping exercise.
Then there's no need for the backstop whatsoever. Fuck off with it (not directed personally at you).
I have seen pictures of Adolf Hitler surrounded by adoring, smiling children. What's not to like?
If you had lived through the terrors of Hitler and the appalling pathe news of the liberation of the camps as I can remember as a child you would not be making insane and disgusting comments such as those
You are possesed with Hitler sadly the name of whom makes me shudder, especially when it is used by sad people like yourself trying to make an ill judged political point
I used to attend Liberal Assemblies and Lib Dem Conferences in the 80s and 90s.
The old Liberal Assemblies were in places like Harrogate, Eastbourne and Llandudno and were enjoyable occasions without intruding too much on the consciousness of anyone not very interested. The towns were glad of the guests at the end of the season and I always found a nice B&B or small hotel to stay which was within walking distance of the conference venue.
Security was non existent and there was an air of convivial irrelevance about the whole thing though the coming of the Alliance brought the sharp edge of SDP professionalism into proceedings and the evolution of Conference into a showcase for the party and an opportunity to network began to evolve.
The Green conference was exactly like that last year. It's one reason why Green activists kept going even when Labour broadly adopted their policies on most issues - many of them are just more comfortable in the friendly fringe than in the argumentative, stressed manistream.
I'm speaking at the fringe of all 3 main parties this year - it'll be interesting to compare.
The issue with the backstop, it now seems to me, isn't the viability of the alternative arrangements, but of the arbitrary nature of the EU's ability to activate the backstop. It is this that needs to be replaced either with third party arbitration (which is a non starter, as there is no organisation capable that would have the faith of both parties), or with a series of objectively demonstrable commitments, entered into by the UK. So what really needs to happen is for the EU to provide a list of their criteria. It is then for the UK, if we consider all the criteria to be reasonable, to suggest benchmarks and agree on these with the EU.
The UK has already agreed this in the joint report and the subsequent mapping exercise.
Then there's no need for the backstop whatsoever. Fuck off with it (not directed personally at you).
It’s needed because there is currently no operable solution that meets the criteria, so unless and until there is, there needs to be an insurance policy.
The issue with the backstop, it now seems to me, isn't the viability of the alternative arrangements, but of the arbitrary nature of the EU's ability to activate the backstop. It is this that needs to be replaced either with third party arbitration (which is a non starter, as there is no organisation capable that would have the faith of both parties), or with a series of objectively demonstrable commitments, entered into by the UK. So what really needs to happen is for the EU to provide a list of their criteria. It is then for the UK, if we consider all the criteria to be reasonable, to suggest benchmarks and agree on these with the EU.
The UK has already agreed this in the joint report and the subsequent mapping exercise.
Then there's no need for the backstop whatsoever. Fuck off with it (not directed personally at you).
It’s needed because there is currently no operable solution that meets the criteria, so unless and until there is, there needs to be an insurance policy.
Then you misunderstand my point, which was that the criteria need to be specific enough that their being met or not met is not subject to interpretation. If we say we can produce a certain type of border operation and we cannot, a backstop situation is justified. The problem lies in the arbitrary nature of the EU's ability to activate it.
I have seen pictures of Adolf Hitler surrounded by adoring, smiling children. What's not to like?
If you had lived through the terrors of Hitler and the appalling pathe news of the liberation of the camps as I can remember as a child you would not be making insane and disgusting comments such as those
You are possesed with Hitler sadly the name of whom makes me shudder, especially when it is used by sad people like yourself trying to make an ill judged political point
I’m guessing he didn’t have the evidence to support his assertions?
Surely the Home Office should be using HMRC’s records to confirm working status not People’s own paperwork that could be forged
Generally, it's bad practice to introduce legislation requiring people to produce documentation that has never been needed before. Most people (in particular most people in Britain - Germany may be a bit different!) don't keep 20 years of records of everything they've done - if you asked me how often and for how long I went abroad in 2011, say, I wouldn't have a clue.
Most honest disputes come down to that, and it ought to be sufficient to produce independent witnesses to confirm that you've been around for decades, unless they're really trying to make it difficult.
The Green conference was exactly like that last year. It's one reason why Green activists kept going even when Labour broadly adopted their policies on most issues - many of them are just more comfortable in the friendly fringe than in the argumentative, stressed manistream.
I'm speaking at the fringe of all 3 main parties this year - it'll be interesting to compare.
The economics of holding Party Conferences mean you need some form of sponsorship via exhibition space and charging companies for pitches. That offsets the costs of venue hire, Police and other costs.
I suspect the hotels do offer some discount for block bookings especially at this time of the year but city centre hotels live on this kind of short-term business booking.
Back in the old days, Police costs were never an issue for the Liberals - there was one bored copper on the door each day, no searches or anything. You walked in, waved your delegate card at a steward and that was it.
Back in the old days, Police costs were never an issue for the Liberals - there was one bored copper on the door each day, no searches or anything. You walked in, waved your delegate card at a steward and that was it.
I’m guessing he didn’t have the evidence to support his assertions?
Surely the Home Office should be using HMRC’s records to confirm working status not People’s own paperwork that could be forged
I am puzzled about ppi claims for the same reason. The chairman of one of the banks was moaning the other day that half the claims are fraudulent, to which the answer is surely: you are a bank. Why do you not know from your records what you lent to whom on what terms?
Comments
EDIT: to clarify, 200 runs, not 200 seconds.....
File under MRDA.
"A tricky 20 minutes or so before lunch for England's openers/top five..."
Tea will be a struggle....
The question for me is whether Manchester will be anything more than a Johnson rally and love-in or whether Conservatives opposed to a No Deal Brexit will be given any kind of platform beyond a fringe meeting or two.
Being opposed to a No Deal Brexit does not equate as being opposed to Brexit by any means - there are Conservatives who would be happy with the existing WA, others who don't like the existing WA but would accept a revised WA (perhaps with the backstop removed a la Brady) and Conservatives who are opposed to any WA and want to leave irrespective of the consequences.
So Johnson isn't preaching to a united choir - he can also see that, Kantar notwithstanding, the split of the Leave bloc vote is around 31-14 which only provides comfort if you rely on USE-less UNS which will be especially irrelevant in a four-party scenario. While there has undoubtedly been a recovery in Conservative fortunes since Johnson became Prime Minister, going to the country is a real gamble and the 2017 experience would tend to a cautious approach.
Holding a GE in the immediate euphoric aftermath of leaving the EU might be attractive but the window of opportunity may be narrow. Even if Johnson prevails, the immediate economic impact and consequences are likely to make his post-GE honeymoon short and 2020 might be a very rough year for the Conservative Government as the economy adjusts to the shock of leaving the EU.
That of course still gives Johnson four years to hope the post-EU future is as rosy as has been painted before a 2024 contest which may look very different to 2019.
Alternatively, as I've argued, Johnson can hope the disunity of the opposition will prove his greatest asset allowing us to leave on 31/10 and he will then have to weather the storm and hope by 2022 all will be better and he can secure his GE win and he will be aided by the continuing presence of Corbyn and the end of BP.
There is the other scenario where we leave on 31/10, Johnson goes to the country and loses. Perhaps that's something else to consider.
I'm on at 7.6 and will be laying back at 3 when they reach 240 for 5.
In any event the Midlands/Manchester have more target marginals than the North West or South Coast.
Sometimes it’s just a game of incremental improvements not some grand conspiracy
(I apologise in advance to any lactose intolerant vegans who may be been triggered by my remarks)
That is very different to, say, NATO where we have agreed to a set of static commitments
Which is why Corbyn would never be able to be neutral. He'd be savaged for it. But what he would do is something similar to 2016, campaigning for a side (in) while trying to avoid getting his hands dirty. Which again would be a disaster.
That brings me to my main point, how do Corbyn-supporting remainers square the two? When Labour's strategy is so "meh", necessarily because of who its leader is and what he believes? It's a recipe for another disaster.
Post no deal we want to fly planes
Do you think the EU is going to stop us flying planes while the CAA is readmitted to the IATA (I think that’s the International rule setter).
If not, then a mini deal has been done
If so, then that is an unbelievable hostile act to a friendly nation and close neighbour. As Chris Grayling told me (although a Cabinet Minister should be more careful with his language) it would be “tantamount to an act of war”
Lined up on one side of this debate (anti-mass starvation, anti-children dying) are Jess Phillips, Ian Murray and others. On the other side are the great Brexit maniacs, who just want as many people as possible to starve in order that they may more freely travel around the world in their gold lifts. Or something.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/24/rage-remainers-will-awesome-brexit-isnt-disaster-praying/
And the only way to get Ref2 is with a Labour government.
This is the essential algebra and IMO it is not difficult to grasp.
But perhaps I'm some sort of genius.
:rolls eyes:
We know your knowledge of geography is a little hazy but its quite something to claim that there are more marginals in Manchester than the North West.
For that matter there are more marginals in Blackpool alone than Manchester.
And if its concentration of marginals which matter than how about holding the conference in Stoke.
Why would the Tories (let alone Farage and Co) be throwing their full weight behind that?
Macron is already ramping up the G7 and his role in it. Hope he has told Donald Trump
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/emmanuel-macron-veut-impliquer-les-francais-dans-le-g7-20190824
You need a combination of a big city with a sizeable venue, plenty of accommodation, good communications (otherwise you won’t get the media attending) and marginals
They will assess venues on a variety measures. It’s not just “I like big cities”
Varadkar hasnt done any no deal planning for the border
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/senior-garda-tell-of-concern-over-lack-of-a-plan-for-border-38431893.html
Are you saying that accommodation or communication capabilities have declined since then ?
Because I very much doubt it.
And how are the LibDems and TUC managing at Bournemouth this year and Labour in Brighton ?
You could also explain how this 'hold the conference in a big city and it will help in the local marginals' strategy is supposed to work.
Because looking at the actual election results it doesn't seem to.
Do you really think someone in Bolton is more likely to vote Conservative because they had their conference in Manchester ?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/19/batman-begins-meet-haseeb-hameed-english-crickets-rising-star
Hopefully he will get a chance with a different county.
Meantime, this is an exceptional stat - only one man, in all of test history - New Zealand's Ken Rutherford - has opened the batting in as many Test innings as Jason Roy with an average lower than his 8.85...
What does the Home Office disagree with him about - if anything?
I used to attend Liberal Assemblies and Lib Dem Conferences in the 80s and 90s.
The old Liberal Assemblies were in places like Harrogate, Eastbourne and Llandudno and were enjoyable occasions without intruding too much on the consciousness of anyone not very interested. The towns were glad of the guests at the end of the season and I always found a nice B&B or small hotel to stay which was within walking distance of the conference venue.
Security was non existent and there was an air of convivial irrelevance about the whole thing though the coming of the Alliance brought the sharp edge of SDP professionalism into proceedings and the evolution of Conference into a showcase for the party and an opportunity to network began to evolve.
Any England batsman deemed to have performed unacceptably in the first innings of a test match has to bat without a helmet in the second innings.
Low turnout, probably, and a result something like the following -
REMAIN - 18, 574, 831
LEAVE - Nick Boles and Richard Tyndall
(Well, maybe not Boles)
https://twitter.com/lucyallan/status/1165023235538391040?s=20
As for the local marginal strategy it’s about local media coverage
I don’t know why they changed. And I don’t really care. But I highly doubt it fits into your grievance narrative. Many of the points you make are good and missed by others. Here you are off target.
But may be we should go back to the original question you never answered. Why is it “unpleasant and unconservative” rather than pragmatic for the Tories to change
You are possesed with Hitler sadly the name of whom makes me shudder, especially when it is used by sad people like yourself trying to make an ill judged political point
I'm speaking at the fringe of all 3 main parties this year - it'll be interesting to compare.
Boris: "Here's your dinner. That's your lot for this week due to the No Deal rationing."
Most honest disputes come down to that, and it ought to be sufficient to produce independent witnesses to confirm that you've been around for decades, unless they're really trying to make it difficult.
I suspect the hotels do offer some discount for block bookings especially at this time of the year but city centre hotels live on this kind of short-term business booking.
Back in the old days, Police costs were never an issue for the Liberals - there was one bored copper on the door each day, no searches or anything. You walked in, waved your delegate card at a steward and that was it.