Are people forgetting that the French also threatened to veto the last extension?
Being awkward is what they do.
I love the idea that in all this carnival of shit, it's the French, rather than the English, who are the awkward ones. Totally barking.
Oh, the British government have been responsible for most of this mess, but some on the EU side have occasionally made things even more complicated than necessary, too - including Macron, who insisted on a shorter extension only until October, much to the irritation of the other EU leaders.
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative.
If it's received royal assent, it can't be argued that it's infringing the royal prerogative.
I’d wager that tomorrow Bozo will advise the Queen against granting that . It’s Bozos best chance of getting an early election .
On what grounds? That it will keep Andrew out of the papers for a while?
On the polls, much as I hate to say it, hasn't YouGov been the "gold standard" in recent years? Including at the European elections.
I'd be inclined to take their 10-14% Tory leads as the truth, but of course that's likely to change when Boris is forced to either get an extension or resign from office.
Survation was the gold standard at the last general, European and local elections have a very different dynamic that results in a serious under-performance for the current incarnation of Labour (relatively low turnout for young and less wealthy).
Yougov records those who voted Labour as recorded in 2017 when weighting, not those who recall voting Labour now like other pollsters
On the polls, much as I hate to say it, hasn't YouGov been the "gold standard" in recent years? Including at the European elections.
I'd be inclined to take their 10-14% Tory leads as the truth, but of course that's likely to change when Boris is forced to either get an extension or resign from office.
Survation was the gold standard at the last general, European and local elections have a very different dynamic that results in a serious under-performance for the current incarnation of Labour (relatively low turnout for young and less wealthy).
Yougov records those who voted Labour as recorded in 2017 when weighting, not those who recall voting Labour now like other pollsters
Did they not do the same thing in 2017 with 2015 voters? Didn't help them much then
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
The big attraction of London is there are a gazillion things to do. This is very important if you are the type of dynamo who likes to do a lot of things - and it is even more important if you aren't.
Re the super-rich, that's a fenced off enclave which 'ordinary Londoners' do not get to see much. If they did, I agree with you - the resentment would be great and possibly potent enough to have an impact. That is something I would like to see.
Believe it or not you can generally do those same things everywhere else.
Now for some they might have the time, inclination and means to have the theatre and posho restaurant lifestyle which may be London specific.
But for most people those gazillion things narrow down to commute, work, eat, wash, sleep.
And, more to the point, all of the things you can do in London when you live there, you can do as a visitor, probably with the same or higher frequency, given the understandable reluctance of working commuters to spend their leisure time travelling into town. As a visitor, instead of a journey home on the late night tube, you just walk round the corner to your hotel.
Of course, if you happen to live in Bloomsbury or the like, things feel different (but living in central London has other downsides), but for the vast majority of Londoners in the outer Boroughs, I bet the frequency with which they enjoy central London concerts/museums/galleries/restaurants/attractions etc. isn’t that high.
Other than homeless heroin addicts staggering around the streets, injecting themselves in doorways, what are the downsides of living in Central London?
On topic, some of us have already been robbed. NSI index linked savings certificates have durations of 3 or 5 years. You can't buy them any more but you can roll over into new ones when existing ones expire. They used to pay RPI plus 1%ish, but as of the last year or so then new ones are CPI plus .00001% odd. The sort of thing which leads to violent revolution.
On the polls, much as I hate to say it, hasn't YouGov been the "gold standard" in recent years? Including at the European elections.
I'd be inclined to take their 10-14% Tory leads as the truth, but of course that's likely to change when Boris is forced to either get an extension or resign from office.
Survation was the gold standard at the last general, European and local elections have a very different dynamic that results in a serious under-performance for the current incarnation of Labour (relatively low turnout for young and less wealthy).
Yougov records those who voted Labour as recorded in 2017 when weighting, not those who recall voting Labour now like other pollsters
Did they not do the same thing in 2017 with 2015 voters? Didn't help them much then
They applied extra weightings to herd them closer to the polling average for their last poll. Their basic result was pretty good.
But how many of the population of London are actually living the theatre and posh restaurant lifestyle ?
Perhaps some people get a vicarious pleasure from walking through Regents Park and then admiring the Nash terraces but wouldn't even more merely resent being shown the lifestyle they can't afford and can never afford ?
The big attraction of London is there are a gazillion things to do. This is very important if you are the type of dynamo who likes to do a lot of things - and it is even more important if you aren't.
Re the super-rich, that's a fenced off enclave which 'ordinary Londoners' do not get to see much. If they did, I agree with you - the resentment would be great and possibly potent enough to have an impact. That is something I would like to see.
Believe it or not you can generally do those same things everywhere else.
Now for some they might have the time, inclination and means to have the theatre and posho restaurant lifestyle which may be London specific.
But for most people those gazillion things narrow down to commute, work, eat, wash, sleep.
And, more to the point, all of the things you can do in London when you live there, you can do as a visitor, probably with the same or higher frequency, given the understandable reluctance of working commuters to spend their leisure time travelling into town. As a visitor, instead of a journey home on the late night tube, you just walk round the corner to your hotel.
Of course, if you happen to live in Bloomsbury or the like, things feel different (but living in central London has other downsides), but for the vast majority of Londoners in the outer Boroughs, I bet the frequency with which they enjoy central London concerts/museums/galleries/restaurants/attractions etc. isn’t that high.
Other than homeless heroin addicts staggering around the streets, injecting themselves in doorways, what are the downsides of living in Central London?
If you think that is a *differential* downside of Central London you should Google "county lines."
London is now an A+ global city along with New York city and Tokyo.
If you want to be in the London elite you cannot just be in the British elite but have to be in the global elite.
The only way to change that is stop London being a top global city which would diminish London but make it more affordable as it was in say the 1970s
Anyone with a job can afford to live in Tokyo, it's cheap. To make London affordable like Tokyo, just adopt Tokyo's planning laws.
I have a friend who bought a house in Hakuba, just a little way back from the ski slopes. He told me that at the height of the Japanese property bubble, ahead of the Naguna Winter olympics, the houses by the slopes went for about $7m.
But MPs have passed legislation saying a no deal can only be sanctioned by a vote .
The anti no deal bill can’t be challenged on the Royal Perogative . The SC has already ruled that can’t be used to remove rights which no deal would do .
Bozo has no chance of winning any challenge , the SC cannot strike down primary legislation .
Not so. The SC could rule it is a matter of Royal Prerogative in which case it is not a matter for Parliament unless they first legislate to end that prerogative. It is also debatable if No Deal removes any more rights than a Deal.
@Richard_Tyndall How do you square that with AG v De Keyser’s Hotel? The HL (as was) determined that a statute can serve to temporarily limit prerogative power, placing it in abeyance. That’s been settled law for nearly a century now. I can’t see how the SC would overturn that
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
The Vote Leave campaign was crap - as most of us identified at the time. Sadly history is slowly being rewritten to judge it a masterpiece of strategy and tactics. But it won because the Remain campaign was even more crap. And because people like to use referendums to kick those in power.
I think the worst thing for public perceptions of Cummings & Vote Leave was having Benedict Cumberbatch playing him (great for Domski of course). I thought the drama was decent entertainment but its portrayal of Cummings as a quirky but brilliant charmer with his finger on the prostate of the (English) voting public was misleadingly dangerous.
Tokyo is also full of pollution, with far fewer green parks than London and less green belt outside it. If you build everywhere in London you would also make it a less pleasant city to live in even if you reduce rent and house prices a bit, yes we need to hold more affordable housing in and around London but we also need to protect most of London's green spaces
Green belt is a specifically British perversion that sensible cities don't imitate - in some directions Tokyo just goes on and on, but if you want to get out to the countryside, you go in a direction where it doesn't. I don't know where you get the idea that Tokyo is very polluted (unless you count cedar pollen in early spring which is hell) and it has loads of little parks all over the place. You don't need to build over parks to increase density - people mainly choose to build upwards near stations (not hugely high rise like Hong Kong, just like 5 to 11 floors), and also let the suburbs around the train lines grow.
OK I exaggerated a bit on pollution, Tokyo is certainly cleaner than say Shanghai and yes building around stations (as we are trying to do in Epping) and in suburbs is sensible while protecting parks. However the green belt is one of the things which is best about London and makes it most livable and in Epping Forest there is a lot of opposition to building on it (led by the LDs)
You just keep on saying nice things about the Lib Dems, HY, my old friend. I have the feeling this is leading somewhere.....
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
The Vote Leave campaign was crap - as most of us identified at the time. Sadly history is slowly being rewritten to judge it a masterpiece of strategy and tactics. But it won because the Remain campaign was even more crap. And because people like to use referendums to kick those in power.
I think the worst thing for public perceptions of Cummings & Vote Leave was having Benedict Cumberbatch playing him (great for Domski of course). I thought the drama was decent entertainment but its portrayal of Cummings as a quirky but brilliant charmer with his finger on the prostate of the (English) voting public was misleadingly dangerous.
Who would play the Canadian experts in the movie of the 2014 referendum ?
On the polls, much as I hate to say it, hasn't YouGov been the "gold standard" in recent years? Including at the European elections.
I'd be inclined to take their 10-14% Tory leads as the truth, but of course that's likely to change when Boris is forced to either get an extension or resign from office.
Survation was the gold standard at the last general, European and local elections have a very different dynamic that results in a serious under-performance for the current incarnation of Labour (relatively low turnout for young and less wealthy).
Yougov records those who voted Labour as recorded in 2017 when weighting, not those who recall voting Labour now like other pollsters
Did they not do the same thing in 2017 with 2015 voters? Didn't help them much then
They applied extra weightings to herd them closer to the polling average for their last poll. Their basic result was pretty good.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
The Vote Leave campaign was crap - as most of us identified at the time. Sadly history is slowly being rewritten to judge it a masterpiece of strategy and tactics. But it won because the Remain campaign was even more crap. And because people like to use referendums to kick those in power.
I think the worst thing for public perceptions of Cummings & Vote Leave was having Benedict Cumberbatch playing him (great for Domski of course). I thought the drama was decent entertainment but its portrayal of Cummings as a quirky but brilliant charmer with his finger on the prostate of the (English) voting public was misleadingly dangerous.
Who would play the Canadian experts in the movie of the 2014 referendum ?
Hale and Pace ? Cannon and Ball ?
You seem obsessed with fighting old battles Flashy. Must be a The People thing: 1690, 2014 and the last time the Real Rangers won anything.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
He wanted to prove himself as a doer, and he didn't expect to get trapped by the Surrender Act - is my guess. He might also have wagered (quite reasonably) that Corbyn the Politician would always go for an election, whenever Boris asked.
Labour's restraint will be a surprise.
So Boris & Dom & Sajid & Michael - alias BDSM (you read it hear first!) - have made errors, but understandable ones.
Rawnsley today sets out the mistakes very clearly:
Yes, the belief that Corbyn would be compelled to agree a GE was the killer bit. But, of course, the No Deal posturing gave him the perfect excuse to refuse. Amateur-hour stuff. Like the Germans in Fawlty Towers, I'm starting to look at Boris, Cummings and VoteLeave and think: how did they win?
The Vote Leave campaign was crap - as most of us identified at the time. Sadly history is slowly being rewritten to judge it a masterpiece of strategy and tactics. But it won because the Remain campaign was even more crap. And because people like to use referendums to kick those in power.
I think the worst thing for public perceptions of Cummings & Vote Leave was having Benedict Cumberbatch playing him (great for Domski of course). I thought the drama was decent entertainment but its portrayal of Cummings as a quirky but brilliant charmer with his finger on the prostate of the (English) voting public was misleadingly dangerous.
Who would play the Canadian experts in the movie of the 2014 referendum ?
Hale and Pace ? Cannon and Ball ?
I think Tommy Cannon is under contract to Emmerdale
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
F1: intriguing race. Got small takes from a while ago in Leclerc finishing top 3 in the title race and (separately) beating Vettel. Verstappen could be a spanner in the works.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.
Then the penny might drop.
That doesn’t make any sense. How can you have been unaware you were banned? Or were you unaware the ban had been lifted. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious
Well unless you work in the city or for a tech firm and earn the big bucks move back to your home town then if you want to get on the property ladder
My brothers both work in tech in London and both have had to move out to Kent and commute.
Our Dad still lives in zone 3, but then he's owned a house in London since the Callaghan ministry.
I was talking about working for Google or Apple or Facebook, not in IT support
They don't work in IT support. If you meant a job with one of three specific companies you should have said so. There are a lot of tech firms in London.
If you work for one of those 3 you will be earning a 6 figure salary on average within a few years, if you don't you won't
That's like saying you can afford to live in London if you work in Banking and then amending your statement to say if you work for Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan or UBS.
I don't think it contradicts the original statement you were replying to, about the difficulty for people to afford to live in London.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.
Then the penny might drop.
That doesn’t make any sense. How can you have been unaware you were banned? Or were you unaware the ban had been lifted. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious
I think what he's saying is that he published subsamples, but not amalgamations thereof. Rather, he calculated percentage changes from the election.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
Good question. 2 answers I have.
1. He needed the election to be forced. The public don't like unnecessary elections by seeking to be blocked first it shows why he needs a majority.
2. He needed to clear out the irreconcilable rebels. There's no point winning a majority only to be hamstrung because your own MPs oppose you. By flushing out the rebels he can replace them and if he wins a majority is can actually be a working majority.
Yes I think that is pretty spot on.
It also shows why he is going to fail big time as PM whatever. This is the behaviour of someone who can't handle people. He's the manager who manages by email rather than talk to people. He's the salesman who sends biros with the company name on rather than make a sales call. He could have won his party round to a single position and gone for it had he talked to them. I think he is just scared of talking to people and risking rejection.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.
Then the penny might drop.
That doesn’t make any sense. How can you have been unaware you were banned? Or were you unaware the ban had been lifted. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious
I think what he's saying is that he published subsamples, but not amalgamations thereof. Rather, he calculated percentage changes from the election.
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Serious (rather than loaded) question - something I do not really understand.
Boris Johnson -
He has the balls to risk his premiership in a snap pre-Brexit election, seeking a mandate for Leave, do or die, no more delay beyond 31 Oct. I used to doubt this but no longer - it's clear that he has.
So WTF did he not just call an election as soon as he became PM?
Why wait and get entangled in all of this?
Good question. 2 answers I have.
1. He needed the election to be forced. The public don't like unnecessary elections by seeking to be blocked first it shows why he needs a majority.
2. He needed to clear out the irreconcilable rebels. There's no point winning a majority only to be hamstrung because your own MPs oppose you. By flushing out the rebels he can replace them and if he wins a majority is can actually be a working majority.
Yes I think that is pretty spot on.
It also shows why he is going to fail big time as PM whatever. This is the behaviour of someone who can't handle people. He's the manager who manages by email rather than talk to people. He's the salesman who sends biros with the company name on rather than make a sales call. He could have won his party round to a single position and gone for it had he talked to them. I think he is just scared of talking to people and risking rejection.
As I understand it he has built his network through the pages of the Telegraph rather than the bars of the Palace of Westminster. He has no network there. His recent behaviour has made a bad situation worse.
This sounds like the kind of thing HYUFD would say, but is it possible there actually is a swing from Brexit to the Lib Dems? There might be a cohort of people who just want Brexit stopped in any way possible and have concluded that cancelling is now easier than delivering?
I suspect today's interventions by EU figures might bounce some into wanting Oct 14 or they may lose the chance to extend
Lets hope there is a last minute change of heart from the Opposition tomorrow and we can finally get on with an election and (hopefully) resolving this one way or another.
No chance, the opposition have sussed Cummings plan and have no intention of facilitating it. Sit back and wait for Oct 31st, the dynamics change at that point
Say you’re going to negotiate a new deal and put that to a vote versus Remain.
If you’re a Labour Remainer you can still vote for them as you’ll get another EU vote , if you’re a Leaver you can still vote to Leave .
Although this risks some awkward questions it might just be enough for a minority government .
Unless the Lib Dems just come out for Revoke then any new vote would still include a Leave option anyway .
The problem for Labour if they came out full Remain is those Midlands and North seats . The Lib Dems will still say you can’t trust Corbyn so it’s really doing the least worst option.
This sounds like the kind of thing HYUFD would say, but is it possible there actually is a swing from Brexit to the Lib Dems? There might be a cohort of people who just want Brexit stopped in any way possible and have concluded that cancelling is now easier than delivering?
At what point if there are hypotheticals with the poll do they ask the VI question?
My point about London is that it is too expensive to deliver a “traditional middle class” lifestyle to all but global kleptocrats and those born into it.
It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.
At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...
Say you’re going to negotiate a new deal and put that to a vote versus Remain.
If you’re a Labour Remainer you can still vote for them as you’ll get another EU vote , if you’re a Leaver you can still vote to Leave .
Although this risks some awkward questions it might just be enough for a minority government .
Unless the Lib Dems just come out for Revoke then any new vote would still include a Leave option anyway .
The problem for Labour if they came out full Remain is those Midlands and North seats . The Lib Dems will still say you can’t trust Corbyn so it’s really doing the least worst option.
There are no good options for Labour.
I would think Labours best option would be to do what Wilson did. Say every MP can campaign for whatever they think is the best option after the negotiations. They can’t outflank the LDs on remain so why leave a big space? Taking the middle ground will seem more grown up. Something people have not experienced with the present Parliament. It would also make Mr. Corbyn less feared amongst the electorate if he is seen to act reasonably on this.
Comments
Quite possibly 3 from con to Lib Dem and 1 from green with 3 from TBP to Con but who knows
The current price is $500,000.
Hale and Pace ?
Cannon and Ball ?
Must be a The People thing: 1690, 2014 and the last time the Real Rangers won anything.
Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.
Then the penny might drop.
F1: intriguing race. Got small takes from a while ago in Leclerc finishing top 3 in the title race and (separately) beating Vettel. Verstappen could be a spanner in the works.
I don't think it contradicts the original statement you were replying to, about the difficulty for people to afford to live in London.
It also shows why he is going to fail big time as PM whatever. This is the behaviour of someone who can't handle people. He's the manager who manages by email rather than talk to people. He's the salesman who sends biros with the company name on rather than make a sales call. He could have won his party round to a single position and gone for it had he talked to them. I think he is just scared of talking to people and risking rejection.
https://twitter.com/polscotcontrol/status/1170645529686134784?s=20
NEW THREAD
Say you’re going to negotiate a new deal and put that to a vote versus Remain.
If you’re a Labour Remainer you can still vote for them as you’ll get another EU vote , if you’re a Leaver you can still vote to Leave .
Although this risks some awkward questions it might just be enough for a minority government .
Unless the Lib Dems just come out for Revoke then any new vote would still include a Leave option anyway .
The problem for Labour if they came out full Remain is those Midlands and North seats . The Lib Dems will still say you can’t trust Corbyn so it’s really doing the least worst option.
There are no good options for Labour.
It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.
At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...