Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Racist Remoaners showing some of their true colours.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
Labour voters are much less fixated by brexit than Conservatives ones. The he simple assumption that all the leave voting areas Labour MPs were going to get swamped was completely undermined at the last general election
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.
In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.
Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
I think it most likely was. But, on the other hand, the union remains resonant notwithstanding Brexit, so I don't think SCon will be completely wiped out, or reduced to just David Mundell. As David says, Leavers really have nowhere else to go, and the face of the party will remain Ruth who will easily out-perform SLAB to be the party of choice for unionists.
That would not follow if Labour looks well placed to oust the Tories GB wide. I doubt that Labour's 2017 recovery had much to do with Kezia Dugdale and was far more influenced by the national Labour surge. For the same reason, I suspect it will be Corbyn's campaign performance - rather than Richard Leonard's - which will really matter.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Racist Remoaners showing some of their true colours.
You want to end free movement with Ireland?
I think that would only be fair for Global Britain.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I agree, if the Brexit Party does not stand, the Tories win with a healthy majority. However the only problem Johnson has in his no deal plan with Farage ,is parliament. I guess Johnson and his team , are working on the assumption that they can not work together.So run down the clock, job done.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Racist Remoaners showing some of their true colours.
You want to end free movement with Ireland?
I think that would only be fair for Global Britain.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
Labour voters are much less fixated by brexit than Conservatives ones. The he simple assumption that all the leave voting areas Labour MPs were going to get swamped was completely undermined at the last general election
But Labours policy then was to respect the referendum result. Their policy now is to ignore it.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
If the Commons attempts to enforce a request for a brexit extension on Johnson, will he play ball in the same way that May did ?
One can argue that the courts will find against him but do they have the power to effectively enforce the law here. A somewhat distant parallel might well be the Begum case, it's widely expected the Gov't will lose if heard but the practical effect of denying her UK citizenship can't be undone (We can't invent a time machine to let her back in 3 years ago).
& If Tory MPs (Letwin, Soames) say that 'this is abhorrent that the PM will not act with an Act' what is their remedy - to bring down the Johnson Gov't and precipitate a GE is the only remedy.
If Johnson really does want to leave then he doesn't have to request an extension, as May did even if Cooper/Boles II passes the Commons.
This is where the Brexit party can instantly get back votes as Johnson's "parliament made me do it" won't wash, and Corbyn's implied chances of becoming PM increase.
The other alternative is that if Johnson doesn't seek an extension then revocation of Art 50 might well come into play - or the EU grants an extension outwith Johnson's request. We're heading into a set of very poor options here, why the deal couldn't be agreed I do not know*
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Be glad when things cool down. As an aside, I had a brief chat with a bloke in Norway the other day. Apparently it's practically winter there now. He was surprised to hear how hot it is in the UK.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
Its a one policy election, Lib Dems are Remain,the Tories are leave. Labour are nowhere.
Be glad when things cool down. As an aside, I had a brief chat with a bloke in Norway the other day. Apparently it's practically winter there now. He was surprised to hear how hot it is in the UK.
He obviously doesn't live in Oslo where it's about 28 degrees at the moment.
If the Commons attempts to enforce a request for a brexit extension on Johnson, will he play ball in the same way that May did ?
One can argue that the courts will find against him but do they have the power to effectively enforce the law here. A somewhat distant parallel might well be the Begum case, it's widely expected the Gov't will lose if heard but the practical effect of denying her UK citizenship can't be undone (We can't invent a time machine to let her back in 3 years ago).
& If Tory MPs (Letwin, Soames) say that 'this is abhorrent that the PM will not act with an Act' what is their remedy - to bring down the Johnson Gov't and precipitate a GE is the only remedy.
If Johnson really does want to leave then he doesn't have to request an extension, as May did even if Cooper/Boles II passes the Commons.
This is where the Brexit party can instantly get back votes as Johnson's "parliament made me do it" won't wash, and Corbyn's implied chances of becoming PM increase.
The other alternative is that if Johnson doesn't seek an extension then revocation of Art 50 might well come into play - or the EU grants an extension outwith Johnson's request. We're heading into a set of very poor options here, why the deal couldn't be agreed I do not know*
* I do I do, it's a rhetorical device !
Can you imagine if on Nov 1 the EU says we are still a member and Boris says "oh no we aren't."
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
There is nothing ethnically racist about reciprocal free movement based on citizenship. The only way to reduce the sanctimony from your argument would be to advocate treating all non-citizens the same as citizens.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
Its a one policy election, Lib Dems are Remain,the Tories are leave. Labour are nowhere.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
Its a one policy election, Lib Dems are Remain,the Tories are leave. Labour are nowhere.
Have you seen the Labour leavers on here ? They are so ridiculously tribally Labour it isn't even funny (I'm not including Justin who has indicated he would spoil his ballot)
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.
So far the negotiation has consisted of:
"We don't like what's on the table."
"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."
"..."
You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
Its a one policy election, Lib Dems are Remain,the Tories are leave. Labour are nowhere.
Have you seen the Labour leavers on here ? They are so ridiculously tribally Labour it isn't even funny (I'm not including Justin who has indicated he would spoil his ballot)
Labour got 5.28% in a recent Wales by-election. These are not normal times.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
But not any Commonwealth countries where brown and black people live, I’ll wager.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Absolutely - we saw this in 2017 when 2015 UKIP voters declined the opportunity to switch to the Tories en masse.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Presumably there would also be a segment of the Conservative vote which would abstain or defect in the event of a Tory/TBP coalition for GE purposes and consequently a No Deal Brexit in the Manifesto.
Tactical voting would also be likely to kick in, as would a kicking for the Tories in Scotland.
Difficult to see the Conservatives increasing their representation in these circumstances. More likely they would fall back a bit, leaving a severely hung Parliament wih the LDs power brokers.
All nice and uncertain - very bad for the country, very good for punters!
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.
So far the negotiation has consisted of:
"We don't like what's on the table."
"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."
"..."
You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.
It's a convienient fiction for plenty of the Letwin, Hammond, Soames "soft remain" brigade in the Tories to buy into though - less so the "hard remain" Grieve, Lee, Bebbs mind.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.
In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.
The Brexit Party were second in Scotland in the European Parliament elections but only third in London
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Absolutely - we saw this in 2017 when 2015 UKIP voters declined the opportunity to switch to the Tories en masse.
The Brazilian government has said it will reject an offer of aid from G7 countries to help tackle fires in the Amazon rainforest. Brazilian ministers say the money is not needed and accuse foreign powers of wanting control of the Amazon.
Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
Probably but it is not certain. Ruth is the face of Unionism in Scotland, that is why our SNP friends give her so much abuse on here. Labour have no equivalent any more. Kezia was close, Leonard is invisible.
As a remainer herself Brexit is more complicated but Tory MPs don't seem to find it so. The ponds in which they are fishing are smaller but there are far fewer anglers throwing out bait.
Yep, SNP have a problem with Ruth. Don't really know how to handle her as the normal demonisation approach doesn't work and they can hardly ignore her either as she'll be everywhere, stunts and all, once the campaign starts.
They have a bit of a problem with fishing too which is why Boris's one-and-only campaign appearance in Scotland will likely be to eat from a bag of fish and chips in Fraserburgh fish market.
Mr. JS, well, it's a long old country so I can well believe it's got some hefty fluctuations (and with the jetstream as it is, drastically different weather to one side or the other seems eminently possible).
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Also. Isn't one of Nigel's conditions that all Tory candidates support No Deal? That would be a different Conservative Party to the present one. One like that, in open collaboration with Farage, and I'm not convinced you would be able to add all the CON vote to the CON vote.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Absolutely - we saw this in 2017 when 2015 UKIP voters declined the opportunity to switch to the Tories en masse.
Do you truly think that if there is only one party standing that will respect and implement the referedum result, that they will not win a GE in the next few months?
Absolutely - we saw this in 2017 when 2015 UKIP voters declined the opportunity to switch to the Tories en masse.
Hmm I think it is more complex than this - half the UKIP or Brexit vote switches, with perhaps 10% going off to Labour and the rest staying home or minor parties (Curtice's numbers iirc) - but remain inclined non normal GE voters are brought out the woodwork who then vote tactically anti-Tory (Which in most cases is Labour).
So the Brexit/UKIP -> Tory switch is real but the net effect doesn't work out that way because of remain actors pushing back against the leave bloc.
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
Labour voters are much less fixated by brexit than Conservatives ones. The he simple assumption that all the leave voting areas Labour MPs were going to get swamped was completely undermined at the last general election
Only as many centrist Remainers lent their vote to Corbyn Labour and will vote LD this time and Corbyn promised Labour Leavers he would deliver Brexit and failed to do so some of them will vote Brexit Party and due to May's dementia tax disaster Boris will not repeat
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.
So far the negotiation has consisted of:
"We don't like what's on the table."
"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."
"..."
You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.
I interpret it as fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge, as TMs deal is about a sensible as it gets. It is not elegant and it may not work. Boris of course is not deserving of sympathy, especially as he is one of the reasons for the current catastrophic position, but put all that one one side I think being where we are the government thinks that the only way out is try to get a deal by going for broke. I very much doubt if it really has a policy yet for what to do if that fails. He can't do much more than you describe because he wants something like TMs deal, but of course can't say so. Bit of a mix up really.
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.
So far the negotiation has consisted of:
"We don't like what's on the table."
"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."
"..."
You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.
I interpret it as fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge, as TMs deal is about a sensible as it gets. It is not elegant and it may not work. Boris of course is not deserving of sympathy, especially as he is one of the reasons for the current catastrophic position, but put all that one one side I think being where we are the government thinks that the only way out is try to get a deal by going for broke. I very much doubt if it really has a policy yet for what to do if that fails. He can't do much more than you describe because he wants something like TMs deal, but of course can't say so. Bit of a mix up really.
Theresa May's deal, and anything with a backstop in, is dead. Boris Johnson played a very large part in killing it.
PS your metaphor about fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge is not the happiest of images. I'm sure Adam was better behaved before the fall of Eden.
The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.
It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.
You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.
The Manichean duality that you are using only works with opposites.
You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.
"Reportedly" doing a lot of heavy lifting in that letter (para 4). Too late for negative ideas. All Labour have to do is indicate they would abstain on TMs deal and then there would truly be something to talk about.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
They want a referendum that will either result in us leaving under May's WA or revoking A50. What is negative about that?
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Absolutely - we saw this in 2017 when 2015 UKIP voters declined the opportunity to switch to the Tories en masse.
Do you truly think that if there is only one party standing that will respect and implement the referedum result, that they will not win a GE in the next few months?
The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.
It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.
You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.
The Manichean duality that you are using only works with opposites.
You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.
Hmm. Labour is a lot worse than wakeboarding. I think it's neck and neck with the turnips though so your argument falls down slightly.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
They want a referendum that will either result in us leaving under May's WA or revoking A50. What is negative about that?
I cannot begin to imagine what might be negative about that.....
The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.
It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
I reckon Her Maj should tell him to keep his gob shut. One way the monarchy could be in danger is if the barbarians decide to disestablish the church.
There is no established church in two of the four countries of the UK, nor (I believe) in any of the Commonwealth realms and the monarchy seems to be doing fine there.
Quick question. I was under the impression that the Anglican Church was present in Wales but not the Established church of Wales: the Church In Wales, not the Church Of Wales. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
It would be a massive irony if that happened when I was too old to take advantage of it...
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.
So far the negotiation has consisted of:
"We don't like what's on the table."
"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."
"..."
You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.
I interpret it as fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge, as TMs deal is about a sensible as it gets. It is not elegant and it may not work. Boris of course is not deserving of sympathy, especially as he is one of the reasons for the current catastrophic position, but put all that one one side I think being where we are the government thinks that the only way out is try to get a deal by going for broke. I very much doubt if it really has a policy yet for what to do if that fails. He can't do much more than you describe because he wants something like TMs deal, but of course can't say so. Bit of a mix up really.
Theresa May's deal, and anything with a backstop in, is dead. Boris Johnson played a very large part in killing it.
PS your metaphor about fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge is not the happiest of images. I'm sure Adam was better behaved before the fall of Eden.
Agree with nearly everything you say, especially about metaphors. But I think "TMs deal is dead, long live TMs deal" may be the Orwellian reality. No-one ever went broke overerstimating the cynicism of the Conservative party or politicians generally.
You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.
If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.
If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.
I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.
So far the negotiation has consisted of:
"We don't like what's on the table."
"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."
"..."
You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.
I interpret it as fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge, as TMs deal is about a sensible as it gets. It is not elegant and it may not work. Boris of course is not deserving of sympathy, especially as he is one of the reasons for the current catastrophic position, but put all that one one side I think being where we are the government thinks that the only way out is try to get a deal by going for broke. I very much doubt if it really has a policy yet for what to do if that fails. He can't do much more than you describe because he wants something like TMs deal, but of course can't say so. Bit of a mix up really.
Some of the BBC news commentary was interesting: that the EU was taking the PM much more seriously.
Originally they viewed him as a buffoon. They they view him as (a) serious and intelligent and (b) fully prepared to go for no deal if the backstop is not eliminated. This has apparently led to the hints of possible softening on their end.
(Of course the idiots in parliament are doing their best to snuff out this very weak and flickering glimmer of light in the darkness)
I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.
For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal. I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.
I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.
If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.
You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.
For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.
Absolutely - we saw this in 2017 when 2015 UKIP voters declined the opportunity to switch to the Tories en masse.
Do you truly think that if there is only one party standing that will respect and implement the referedum result, that they will not win a GE in the next few months?
I am not persuaded that views on Brexit are anything like as salient as you - and so many others - clearly believe. The idea that we would fight an election campaign for five or six weeks focussed on an issue most people are sick to death of is 'for the birds'.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.
It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.
You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.
The Manichean duality that you are using only works with opposites.
You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.
Hmm. Labour is a lot worse than wakeboarding. I think it's neck and neck with the turnips though so your argument falls down slightly.
The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.
It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
I reckon Her Maj should tell him to keep his gob shut. One way the monarchy could be in danger is if the barbarians decide to disestablish the church.
There is no established church in two of the four countries of the UK, nor (I believe) in any of the Commonwealth realms and the monarchy seems to be doing fine there.
Quick question. I was under the impression that the Anglican Church was present in Wales but not the Established church of Wales: the Church In Wales, not the Church Of Wales. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
Yes. Wales disestablished 1914. Chesterton wrote a bad poem about it. Still exists. The great and saintly Rowan Williams is one of its fine sons. Cathedrals and many parish churches well worth visiting
The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.
It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
I reckon Her Maj should tell him to keep his gob shut. One way the monarchy could be in danger is if the barbarians decide to disestablish the church.
There is no established church in two of the four countries of the UK, nor (I believe) in any of the Commonwealth realms and the monarchy seems to be doing fine there.
Quick question. I was under the impression that the Anglican Church was present in Wales but not the Established church of Wales: the Church In Wales, not the Church Of Wales. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
And the Church of Ireland is a disestablished member of the Anglican Communion but is closer to the Scottish tradition than the English
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Given their nanny-stataism I wouldn't rule it out. They won't be happy until all we're left with is Irn Bru and BBC Scotland.
Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Given their nanny-stataism I wouldn't rule it out. They won't be happy until all we're left with is Irn Bru and BBC Scotland.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Really? They only polled 37% in 2017 and the most recent poll gives them 38%. In a Westminster election, I expect their vote share to slip.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Of course not. A Remainer cannot vote for any Brexit. Full stop.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Yes. And parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art 50 at a time when it was thought revocation would not be lawfully possible, so parliament intended either a deal or crash out. Swinson so far is a true dog in the manger, less impressive as leader in a national crisis than I expected.
The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.
It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.
odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,
If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.
Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.
You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.
The Manichean duality that you are using only works with opposites.
You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.
Hmm. Labour is a lot worse than wakeboarding. I think it's neck and neck with the turnips though so your argument falls down slightly.
Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.
The point is that people are sick of it - and will be receptive to other issues being raised.
Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Of course not. A Remainer cannot vote for any Brexit. Full stop.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The word "Racism" may not be written in the Act but it will be written all over it. In today's world, no Parlaiment will pass such an Act. This is not 1971.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Really? They only polled 37% in 2017 and the most recent poll gives them 38%. In a Westminster election, I expect their vote share to slip.
It does not look to me like Labour will get back to near 27% in Scotland let alone 30%. If the Tories get back half of the Brexit vote with the other half staying home then the "woodwork" remainers slip back to the SNP column, not Labour this time round.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Yes. And parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art 50 at a time when it was thought revocation would not be lawfully possible, so parliament intended either a deal or crash out. Swinson so far is a true dog in the manger, less impressive as leader in a national crisis than I expected.
She is not alone in this. Let's suppose that Boris gets a deal which either solves or even just shows a credible path to solving the NI border issue and brings what is effectively May's deal back to the House with that change. How many of those so committed to preventing no deal today would support that deal? If the answer is none, as I believe it to be, then this is not opposition to no deal, it is opposition to leaving at all.
Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.
Like it was in 2017?
Well Boris isn't going to be stupid enough to introduce a death tax as May did.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Given their nanny-stataism I wouldn't rule it out. They won't be happy until all we're left with is Irn Bru and BBC Scotland.
Do you mean nanny-satanism? Tell us more....
Blah! You knew what I meant. I don't even like Irn Bru
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Of course not. A Remainer cannot vote for any Brexit. Full stop.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Really? They only polled 37% in 2017 and the most recent poll gives them 38%. In a Westminster election, I expect their vote share to slip.
It does not look to me like Labour will get back to near 27% in Scotland let alone 30%. If the Tories get back half of the Brexit vote with the other half staying home then the "woodwork" remainers slip back to the SNP column, not Labour this time round.
But 27% did not look likely at the end pf April 2017.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
But not any Commonwealth countries where brown and black people live, I’ll wager.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
Comments
I'm not sure this is correct looking at the chart above. Just slam SNP 40pc into your electoral calculators.
However the only problem Johnson has in his no deal plan with Farage ,is parliament.
I guess Johnson and his team , are working on the assumption that they can not work together.So run down the clock, job done.
If the Commons attempts to enforce a request for a brexit extension on Johnson, will he play ball in the same way that May did ?
One can argue that the courts will find against him but do they have the power to effectively enforce the law here.
A somewhat distant parallel might well be the Begum case, it's widely expected the Gov't will lose if heard but the practical effect of denying her UK citizenship can't be undone (We can't invent a time machine to let her back in 3 years ago).
& If Tory MPs (Letwin, Soames) say that 'this is abhorrent that the PM will not act with an Act' what is their remedy - to bring down the Johnson Gov't and precipitate a GE is the only remedy.
If Johnson really does want to leave then he doesn't have to request an extension, as May did even if Cooper/Boles II passes the Commons.
This is where the Brexit party can instantly get back votes as Johnson's "parliament made me do it" won't wash, and Corbyn's implied chances of becoming PM increase.
The other alternative is that if Johnson doesn't seek an extension then revocation of Art 50 might well come into play - or the EU grants an extension outwith Johnson's request. We're heading into a set of very poor options here, why the deal couldn't be agreed I do not know*
* I do I do, it's a rhetorical device !
Be glad when things cool down. As an aside, I had a brief chat with a bloke in Norway the other day. Apparently it's practically winter there now. He was surprised to hear how hot it is in the UK.
So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
"We don't like what's on the table."
"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."
"..."
You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.
Tactical voting would also be likely to kick in, as would a kicking for the Tories in Scotland.
Difficult to see the Conservatives increasing their representation in these circumstances. More likely they would fall back a bit, leaving a severely hung Parliament wih the LDs power brokers.
All nice and uncertain - very bad for the country, very good for punters!
Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
Probably but it is not certain. Ruth is the face of Unionism in Scotland, that is why our SNP friends give her so much abuse on here. Labour have no equivalent any more. Kezia was close, Leonard is invisible.
As a remainer herself Brexit is more complicated but Tory MPs don't seem to find it so. The ponds in which they are fishing are smaller but there are far fewer anglers throwing out bait.
Yep, SNP have a problem with Ruth. Don't really know how to handle her as the normal demonisation approach doesn't work and they can hardly ignore her either as she'll be everywhere, stunts and all, once the campaign starts.
They have a bit of a problem with fishing too which is why Boris's one-and-only campaign appearance in Scotland will likely be to eat from a bag of fish and chips in Fraserburgh fish market.
So the Brexit/UKIP -> Tory switch is real but the net effect doesn't work out that way because of remain actors pushing back against the leave bloc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49483374?ns_linkname=news_central&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_mchannel=social
BBC HYS = Remainer central ? Not today..
Corbyn writes to 116 Tory MPs including May, Hammond, Clark....
PS your metaphor about fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge is not the happiest of images. I'm sure Adam was better behaved before the fall of Eden.
You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1166353810580791296?s=21
Originally they viewed him as a buffoon. They they view him as (a) serious and intelligent and (b) fully prepared to go for no deal if the backstop is not eliminated. This has apparently led to the hints of possible softening on their end.
(Of course the idiots in parliament are doing their best to snuff out this very weak and flickering glimmer of light in the darkness)