Disgraceful. May said something similar around the time of the A50 case, and they might well roll back on these attacks as they did with Kwarteng's, but the tactic is painfully obvious and offensive, bemoaning political opponents seeking legal challenge but also demanding a political decision by the judges, given they continue to emphasise how dare they 'side' with those seeking to cancel a democratic vote, ie the judges should politically decide not to do that regardless of what their view of the law might be.
And I say that content if the judges were to rule the government's actions had been entirely lawful. But I get the impression they hope that is not the ruling, just more reasons they can complain then.
The government is acting disgracefully . They’re now trying to put political pressure on the judges. Brexit is destroying everything in its wake.
I don't know how they can even defend it. They are literally warning the judges that siding with the enemy will be a mistake, for that political reason alone.
Disgraceful. May said something similar around the time of the A50 case, and they might well roll back on these attacks as they did with Kwarteng's, but the tactic is painfully obvious and offensive, bemoaning political opponents seeking legal challenge but also demanding a political decision by the judges, given they continue to emphasise how dare they 'side' with those seeking to cancel a democratic vote, ie the judges should politically decide not to do that regardless of what their view of the law might be.
And I say that content if the judges were to rule the government's actions had been entirely lawful. But I get the impression they hope that is not the ruling, just more reasons they can complain then.
The Goverment are desperate to avoid no deal. They just want it to be absolutely clear that it is not their fault
I get that theory, but how can they simultaneously complain about opponents disgracefully using the legal system - and while I will await the legal judgement I do think some of the opponents have taken things down the legal route to avoid the simpler but more politically difficult routes in parliament they could have taken - whilst blatantly seeking to impose political pressure, even if that pressure is just an act to show it is not their fault?
Disgraceful. May said something similar around the time of the A50 case, and they might well roll back on these attacks as they did with Kwarteng's, but the tactic is painfully obvious and offensive, bemoaning political opponents seeking legal challenge but also demanding a political decision by the judges, given they continue to emphasise how dare they 'side' with those seeking to cancel a democratic vote, ie the judges should politically decide not to do that regardless of what their view of the law might be.
And I say that content if the judges were to rule the government's actions had been entirely lawful. But I get the impression they hope that is not the ruling, just more reasons they can complain then.
The Goverment are desperate to avoid no deal. They just want it to be absolutely clear that it is not their fault
I get that theory, but how can they simultaneously complain about opponents disgracefully using the legal system - and while I will await the legal judgement I do think some of the opponents have taken things down the legal route to avoid the simpler but more politically difficult routes in parliament they could have taken - whilst blatantly seeking to impose political pressure, even if that pressure is just an act to show it is not their fault?
Because they’re extremely cynical and in a corner.
Disgraceful. May said something similar around the time of the A50 case, and they might well roll back on these attacks as they did with Kwarteng's, but the tactic is painfully obvious and offensive, bemoaning political opponents seeking legal challenge but also demanding a political decision by the judges, given they continue to emphasise how dare they 'side' with those seeking to cancel a democratic vote, ie the judges should politically decide not to do that regardless of what their view of the law might be.
And I say that content if the judges were to rule the government's actions had been entirely lawful. But I get the impression they hope that is not the ruling, just more reasons they can complain then.
The Goverment are desperate to avoid no deal. They just want it to be absolutely clear that it is not their fault
Boris is finished if he comes back with May's WA unamended. So no, I don't think he'd be desperate to avoid no deal in that circumstance.
They are finished if they bring back May’s WA. They are finished if no deal happens. Their entire strategy has been based on getting an election and majority beforehand, and/or getting a deal.
Their only way out now realistically is if an extension happens, followed by an election, for which they don’t get the blame and can officially claim to still be pursuing a deal or no deal policy.
Labour’s policy is actually the most sensible one at this stage.
They won’t get any thanks from a hyper partisan media for it because no one actually cares about policy anymore and its all about ways to attack Corbyn.
I say this as an “ultra die hard remainer” and professional Corbyn-detester.
Fair play, that's very honest.
It makes for a very cynical national debate, so often I assume my opponents couldn't care less about what they are saying but instead just looking for attack angles. I think my cynicism is well founded but there must be some genuine people out there that I just dismiss because they blend into the crowd.
I'm no mathematician, but something looks fishy about those numbers.
It is a two seat ward. At the previous election, the LDs only fielded one candidate, who got most votes. The Tories fielded two candidates, of which only one was elected.
I'm no mathematician, but something looks fishy about those numbers.
It is a two seat ward. At the previous election, the LDs only fielded one candidate, who got most votes. The Tories fielded two candidates, of which only one was elected.
Shouldn't the old percentages still add up to a hundred, though? Isn't that the idea of percentages?
Quite interesting that the Westcountry was also very Brexity.
It might be an eye-opener for those who think the LibDem seats are going to pile up in the SW.....
Worth remembering, though, that there will likely be many seats where the Brexit policy of the party representing the seat will not represent how the constituency thinks about Brexit.
So, in some Remain-y London seats, you could see the Conservatives winning on a high 30s vote share, while LibDem, Green and Labour carve up the Remain vote.
And in some Leave-y places in the South West, you could see the Conservatives and Brexit Party splitting the Leave vote, and letting the LibDems in.
Disgraceful. May said something similar around the time of the A50 case, and they might well roll back on these attacks as they did with Kwarteng's, but the tactic is painfully obvious and offensive, bemoaning political opponents seeking legal challenge but also demanding a political decision by the judges, given they continue to emphasise how dare they 'side' with those seeking to cancel a democratic vote, ie the judges should politically decide not to do that regardless of what their view of the law might be.
And I say that content if the judges were to rule the government's actions had been entirely lawful. But I get the impression they hope that is not the ruling, just more reasons they can complain then.
The government is acting disgracefully . They’re now trying to put political pressure on the judges. Brexit is destroying everything in its wake.
It’s not just a crime, it’s an error. They really have no idea what makes judges tick. Are they hoping to be slated?
Has no one considered that a 2nd referendum will probably be boycotted by Leavers? If it looks like Remain will win, there is nothing to gain by participating.
In such a scenario, the referendum will be just as divisive as revoking article 50.
If they boycott, it will simply mean they have not voted. Remain could win 60-40
Boris Johnson certainly needs to be asked whether he was sleeping with her. Perhaps an MP could oblige, if Parliament reconvenes long enough for Prime Minister’s Questions?
Actually that's not the point, is it? He can sleep with whomever he likes and it's a matter for him and them - it's not a matter of rules of office. But none of them should be subsidised and given advantageous access to contracts by the taxpayer. I'm not really sure who would investigate such allegations - is it a police matter?
Quite interesting that the Westcountry was also very Brexity.
It might be an eye-opener for those who think the LibDem seats are going to pile up in the SW.....
Worth remembering, though, that there will likely be many seats where the Brexit policy of the party representing the seat will not represent how the constituency thinks about Brexit.
So, in some Remain-y London seats, you could see the Conservatives winning on a high 30s vote share, while LibDem, Green and Labour carve up the Remain vote.
And in some Leave-y places in the South West, you could see the Conservatives and Brexit Party splitting the Leave vote, and letting the LibDems in.
Some places may well be less Leavey than they were in 2016 too...
Has no one considered that a 2nd referendum will probably be boycotted by Leavers? If it looks like Remain will win, there is nothing to gain by participating.
In such a scenario, the referendum will be just as divisive as revoking article 50.
If they boycott, it will simply mean they have not voted. Remain could win 60-40
Remain could win 80-20. It’s irrelevant. It will not unite the country. It’s just a wheeze.
Disgraceful. May said something similar around the time of the A50 case, and they might well roll back on these attacks as they did with Kwarteng's, but the tactic is painfully obvious and offensive, bemoaning political opponents seeking legal challenge but also demanding a political decision by the judges, given they continue to emphasise how dare they 'side' with those seeking to cancel a democratic vote, ie the judges should politically decide not to do that regardless of what their view of the law might be.
And I say that content if the judges were to rule the government's actions had been entirely lawful. But I get the impression they hope that is not the ruling, just more reasons they can complain then.
The government is acting disgracefully . They’re now trying to put political pressure on the judges. Brexit is destroying everything in its wake.
It’s not just a crime, it’s an error. They really have no idea what makes judges tick. Are they hoping to be slated?
I was going to say - surely they don't think judges are going to be influenced by Cummings briefing journalists like that?
Presumably it's for the voters' benefit, but which ones? Brexit Party voters who think Boris Johnson is a big girl's blouse?
"Welcome to Labour’s Twilight Zone, its ruling NEC, whose members don’t know whether they have or haven’t approved a draft policy statement in favour of a referendum combined with militant agnosticism on Leave versus Remain."
Disgraceful. May said something similar around the time of the A50 case, and they might well roll back on these attacks as they did with Kwarteng's, but the tactic is painfully obvious and offensive, bemoaning political opponents seeking legal challenge but also demanding a political decision by the judges, given they continue to emphasise how dare they 'side' with those seeking to cancel a democratic vote, ie the judges should politically decide not to do that regardless of what their view of the law might be.
And I say that content if the judges were to rule the government's actions had been entirely lawful. But I get the impression they hope that is not the ruling, just more reasons they can complain then.
The government is acting disgracefully . They’re now trying to put political pressure on the judges. Brexit is destroying everything in its wake.
It’s not just a crime, it’s an error. They really have no idea what makes judges tick. Are they hoping to be slated?
I'm wary of assuming something stupid is part of someone's plam, but in this case I think it is. They say they will abide by the ruling (that they need to consider that stance is shameful enough) while outriders still talk about breaking the law, and they get sources to paint a judges=the enemy attack which they can have Boris say of course he doesn't believe, wink, while getting the benefit of riling people up with it anyway.
Speaking as a Diehard Remainer (TM) I don't really have a problem with this, as long as they're clear on the referendum. On balance it's probably better to have Hypothetical PM Corbyn supporting Remain rather than opposing, but it could easily be the other way.
Also just because the party is on the fence doesn't mean that their candidates have to be. If Corbyn stays then Labour will likely hardly be making any gains, and their job is mainly to limit the losses to Con. A lot of the Con targets are quite leave-ish, so there's something to be said for giving the incumbents the ability to pick a message that appeals to their voters.
I know there's a benefit to having a clear message, but I think that ship has already sailed.
It didn't cause any problem in 1975. The Party was officially AGAINST. Many Cabinet Ministers and MPs were against. The Wilson Government recommended the "deal" but Wilson himself stayed above the fray. Why can't it work again ?
Has no one considered that a 2nd referendum will probably be boycotted by Leavers? If it looks like Remain will win, there is nothing to gain by participating.
In such a scenario, the referendum will be just as divisive as revoking article 50.
If they boycott, it will simply mean they have not voted. Remain could win 60-40
Remain could win 80-20. It’s irrelevant. It will not unite the country. It’s just a wheeze.
Nothing will. Let's be divided with a functioning export market, rather than divided with everything on fire.
Has no one considered that a 2nd referendum will probably be boycotted by Leavers? If it looks like Remain will win, there is nothing to gain by participating.
In such a scenario, the referendum will be just as divisive as revoking article 50.
If they boycott, it will simply mean they have not voted. Remain could win 60-40
Remain could win 80-20. It’s irrelevant. It will not unite the country. It’s just a wheeze.
Uniting the country is not anyone's aim right now, winning is. The question is will whoever wins the next phase be able to keep a lid on things for a time afterwards.
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
I haven't seen it, but Kermode's review makes me think it's a scifi-film-for-people-who-don't-get-scifi. And therefore poor scifi.
A bit like Inception which, whilst a good film, was a bit cr@p scifi-wise. Quite why anyone thought it was 'complex' is beyond me.
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Has no one considered that a 2nd referendum will probably be boycotted by Leavers? If it looks like Remain will win, there is nothing to gain by participating.
In such a scenario, the referendum will be just as divisive as revoking article 50.
The only way to maintain a semblance of national unity and cohesion would be to leave to EEA.
Unfortunately that is not politically viable.
We’re f*cked either way but we’re probably better off long-term being f*cked whilst remaining in the European Union.
🔶
I think EFTA/EEA is very much politically viable.
Tell that to @HYUFD please. That would be ‘betraying the leave voting working class’ apparently.
He toes the party line. If the party leadership shifted to an EFTA solution HYUFD would have a dozen arguments about why it is the best solution backed up by polling evidence showing how popular it is.
And the ERG and Farage would have even more arguments about why it was a betrayal. You just fundamentally don’t understand Brexiteers. If Brexit doesn’t pose an existential threat to the EU, then it will have been for nothing in their eyes.
I am afraid it is you with your extremist zealotry who don't understand Brexiteers. You will only acknowledge the arguments of the most extreme on thebopposite side from you because to concede there are more centrist cases would be to accept sone of the arguments for Brexit.
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
I haven't seen it, but Kermode's review makes me think it's a scifi-film-for-people-who-don't-get-scifi. And therefore poor scifi.
A bit like Inception which, whilst a good film, was a bit cr@p scifi-wise. Quite why anyone thought it was 'complex' is beyond me.
It's more than I have to struggle really hard to think what the point of the movie could possibly have been, and not a single character acted like a believable human being. Have heard good things about primer.
Speaking as a Diehard Remainer (TM) I don't really have a problem with this, as long as they're clear on the referendum. On balance it's probably better to have Hypothetical PM Corbyn supporting Remain rather than opposing, but it could easily be the other way.
Also just because the party is on the fence doesn't mean that their candidates have to be. If Corbyn stays then Labour will likely hardly be making any gains, and their job is mainly to limit the losses to Con. A lot of the Con targets are quite leave-ish, so there's something to be said for giving the incumbents the ability to pick a message that appeals to their voters.
I know there's a benefit to having a clear message, but I think that ship has already sailed.
It didn't cause any problem in 1975. The Party was officially AGAINST. Many Cabinet Ministers and MPs were against. The Wilson Government recommended the "deal" but Wilson himself stayed above the fray. Why can't it work again ?
I think it's a broadly workable fudge IF Labour win a majority. Their trouble is that they probably won't win a majority in an election where the key issue is Brexit and their opponents have clear and distinctive policies.
Do Labour Party members believe that prove private property rights should exist wholly at the whim of the state and that everything is fair game for expropriation? That seems to be the natural conclusion of their beliefs and actions.
Quite interesting that the Westcountry was also very Brexity.
It might be an eye-opener for those who think the LibDem seats are going to pile up in the SW.....
Worth remembering, though, that there will likely be many seats where the Brexit policy of the party representing the seat will not represent how the constituency thinks about Brexit.
So, in some Remain-y London seats, you could see the Conservatives winning on a high 30s vote share, while LibDem, Green and Labour carve up the Remain vote.
And in some Leave-y places in the South West, you could see the Conservatives and Brexit Party splitting the Leave vote, and letting the LibDems in.
Some places may well be less Leavey than they were in 2016 too...
I know it's deemed bad taste to mention demographics but... more 2016 Leave voters will have passed away than Remain voters and there's no reason to expect the 18-21 year olds who have joined the electorate will be less Remainy than their 22-25 year old near-peers.
Do Labour Party members believe that prove private property rights should exist wholly at the whim of the state and that everything is fair game for expropriation? That seems to be the natural conclusion of their beliefs and actions.
It does seem that way. Private schools, tenants rights to buy their home from a private landlord at a massive discount. Way until they cant afford all their pledges and then it really will be open season. Unlike jezza, McDonnell isnt a moron but far more extreme.
Can anyone explain the justification for the £100m still being spent on the 'Get Ready for Brexit' campaign?
Given we still have no idea what type of Brexit we will have, if we have one at all, how can anyone get ready for Brexit?
What a farce; what a waste of money.
It was about manufacturing one of the most powerful forces in politics - a sense of inevitability. It's about using tax payers money to reinforce the ' do or die ' deadline and cow the House of Commons. But the grid it was initially part of didn't include Corbyn blocking the pre 31/10 election.
Quite interesting that the Westcountry was also very Brexity.
It might be an eye-opener for those who think the LibDem seats are going to pile up in the SW.....
Worth remembering, though, that there will likely be many seats where the Brexit policy of the party representing the seat will not represent how the constituency thinks about Brexit.
So, in some Remain-y London seats, you could see the Conservatives winning on a high 30s vote share, while LibDem, Green and Labour carve up the Remain vote.
And in some Leave-y places in the South West, you could see the Conservatives and Brexit Party splitting the Leave vote, and letting the LibDems in.
Some places may well be less Leavey than they were in 2016 too...
I know it's deemed bad taste to mention demographics but... more 2016 Leave voters will have passed away than Remain voters and there's no reason to expect the 18-21 year olds who have joined the electorate will be less Remainy than their 22-25 year old near-peers.
I was thinking more of those like Sunil, who now are travelling on the other bus.
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
I haven't seen it, but Kermode's review makes me think it's a scifi-film-for-people-who-don't-get-scifi. And therefore poor scifi.
A bit like Inception which, whilst a good film, was a bit cr@p scifi-wise. Quite why anyone thought it was 'complex' is beyond me.
It's more than I have to struggle really hard to think what the point of the movie could possibly have been, and not a single character acted like a believable human being. Have heard good things about primer.
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).
That's the thing, I had no idea it existed until about 3 weeks ago, so I'm not sure it has been that heavily advertised given I've been to the cinema about 12 times this year already. But it was so weirdly acted I kept expecting a twist that never came. Good cinematography though.
I'm talking about advertising outside the cinema, not trailers. I've not been to a film in months, so I've seen no trailers. But I've seen banner ads and heard radio/podcast ads for Ad Astra, more then any film for a long while.
David Cameron will be pleased with Aston Villa's 2-0 victory over Manchester United but just how old is he?
For the Record: we had gone cap in hand to the IMF in the 1970s – a humiliation seared into the memories of my generation.
David Cameron was born in 1966 so by my calculation, he'd have been just ten in 1976.
I guess his stockbroker dad frightened him with bed time stories of Marxist-Leninist pip squeezer Healey grovelling to the IMF. I don't think I'm even joking.
That sounds plausible. I was born after the IMF crisis (1980) but my mother would always bring it up when I asked her about elections (which I suppose must be from 1987 onwards). The conversation would go a bit like this "Who did you vote for mummy?" "I voted Conservative- I have done ever since we went to the IMF". She had previously been quite a lefty- consistently voting Labour from 1964-74 but she regarded, and still regards, going to the IMF as such a humiliation that she has never voted Labour again. As a result it is "seared" (to use Cameron's expression) in my memory as well.
That is possible, I suppose. There used to be a poster on here that I'd used to think (wrongly, as it turned out) was a parent/child combination sharing an account, who'd been in the sixth form during the Thatcher years yet remembered decolonisation of the pink countries on her primary school map.
But you'd have hoped Cameron's claim might have been caught in the editing process. According to Allison Pearson's Telegraph review, the publisher had already forced a cut of 100,000 words for length.
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Firstly, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are heading for 300+ seats.
Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.
I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
Has no one considered that a 2nd referendum will probably be boycotted by Leavers? If it looks like Remain will win, there is nothing to gain by participating.
In such a scenario, the referendum will be just as divisive as revoking article 50.
If they boycott, it will simply mean they have not voted. Remain could win 60-40
Remain could win 80-20. It’s irrelevant. It will not unite the country. It’s just a wheeze.
Nothing will. Let's be divided with a functioning export market, rather than divided with everything on fire.
Yes. That’s my point. Therefore why not just revoke? Same result but saves a lot of time and money. Both options are equally as undemocratic.
Labour's policy is to deliver a Ref2 choice excluding Hard Leave - which virtually guarantees Remain.
And people agitate for them for be more Remainy.
😞
I don't think it necessarily guarantees Remain.
There will be some Brexiteers who will say "anything less than a 'clean break' [whatever the hell that is] isn't enough, so I'll vote it down".
But you also have Remainers who aren't obsessive about it, and feel there needs to be a compromise. There are a fair number who I suspect would vote for it out of a somewhat selfless desire for closure for everyone.
And you have dyed in the wool Corbynites who would want to support Corbyn's deal because it's his deal.
I'm no mathematician, but something looks fishy about those numbers.
It is a two seat ward. At the previous election, the LDs only fielded one candidate, who got most votes. The Tories fielded two candidates, of which only one was elected.
Shouldn't the old percentages still add up to a hundred, though? Isn't that the idea of percentages?
The only way to do that would be to add up the Con votes
Can anyone explain the justification for the £100m still being spent on the 'Get Ready for Brexit' campaign?
Given we still have no idea what type of Brexit we will have, if we have one at all, how can anyone get ready for Brexit?
What a farce; what a waste of money.
It was about manufacturing one of the most powerful forces in politics - a sense of inevitability. It's about using tax payers money to reinforce the ' do or die ' deadline and cow the House of Commons. But the grid it was initially part of didn't include Corbyn blocking the pre 31/10 election.
Or to pass the “extension” law. I don’t believe the Govt ever intended to nodeal, but they just did to good a job of convincing that that was their intention. And now they’re in all sorts of trouble with no paddle. Trouble is, it’s not just them it’s the country. Both the Conservative party (of their own doing), and the country (thanks to Margaret Beckett) lack a get out clause. We on the path to calamity and there’s no route out.
Quite interesting that the Westcountry was also very Brexity.
It might be an eye-opener for those who think the LibDem seats are going to pile up in the SW.....
Worth remembering, though, that there will likely be many seats where the Brexit policy of the party representing the seat will not represent how the constituency thinks about Brexit.
So, in some Remain-y London seats, you could see the Conservatives winning on a high 30s vote share, while LibDem, Green and Labour carve up the Remain vote.
And in some Leave-y places in the South West, you could see the Conservatives and Brexit Party splitting the Leave vote, and letting the LibDems in.
Some places may well be less Leavey than they were in 2016 too...
I know it's deemed bad taste to mention demographics but... more 2016 Leave voters will have passed away than Remain voters and there's no reason to expect the 18-21 year olds who have joined the electorate will be less Remainy than their 22-25 year old near-peers.
I was thinking more of those like Sunil, who now are travelling on the other bus.
"Me? Are you kidding? Hey, I was with you all the time! That was beautiful! Did you see the way they feel into our trap? Ha ha!"
Quite interesting that the Westcountry was also very Brexity.
It might be an eye-opener for those who think the LibDem seats are going to pile up in the SW.....
Worth remembering, though, that there will likely be many seats where the Brexit policy of the party representing the seat will not represent how the constituency thinks about Brexit.
So, in some Remain-y London seats, you could see the Conservatives winning on a high 30s vote share, while LibDem, Green and Labour carve up the Remain vote.
And in some Leave-y places in the South West, you could see the Conservatives and Brexit Party splitting the Leave vote, and letting the LibDems in.
Some places may well be less Leavey than they were in 2016 too...
I know it's deemed bad taste to mention demographics but... more 2016 Leave voters will have passed away than Remain voters and there's no reason to expect the 18-21 year olds who have joined the electorate will be less Remainy than their 22-25 year old near-peers.
I was thinking more of those like Sunil, who now are travelling on the other bus.
"Me? Are you kidding? Hey, I was with you all the time! That was beautiful! Did you see the way they feel into our trap? Ha ha!"
There will be some Brexiteers who will say "anything less than a 'clean break' [whatever the hell that is] isn't enough, so I'll vote it down".
But you also have Remainers who aren't obsessive about it, and feel there needs to be a compromise. There are a fair number who I suspect would vote for it out of a somewhat selfless desire for closure for everyone.
And you have dyed in the wool Corbynites who would want to support Corbyn's deal because it's his deal.
Well I would price it at 10% max.
Not sure who would campaign for it other than Caroline Flint.
Even our own Soft Brexit ultra - Richard Tyndall - says he would abstain.
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).
Heavily advertised? Not worth it? Are we talking about Ad Astra or Brexit?
Perhaps the “no10” source would like to spell out the consequences for our benefit and what they are actually envisaging for the future of the country. Because it sure ain’t a democratic country operating within the rule of law.
What a triumph for Brexiteers!
Any chance the Justice Secretary might show some backbone and actually do something about these briefings?
It's the Lord Chancellor, one Robert Buckland QC, who needs to show some backbone on this. He is under a legal duty to protect the judiciary.
Presumably he's too weak to do so and/or doesn't plan on reviving his legal career when this wretched government is turfed out of office.
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Firstly, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are heading for 300+ seats.
Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.
I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
I think we're all so used to the LibDems massively underperforming expectations, that we assume it's going to happen again. (Disclaimer: it will probably happen again.)
But the next election is probably their best shot in a Century for getting a majority. The governing Conservative Party is fighting with BXP who can be more for "diamond Brexit". The Labour Party is run by uninspiring anti-semite, with no policy on the issue de jour, and otherwise unworkable policies.
Now, will this all come together and result in a LibDem majority? Probably not. But I think that @Byronic is probably right: Jo Swinson does seem disturbingly nice and normal, and she's preaching to a third of the population who've been abandoned by Labour and the Conservatives.
There will be some Brexiteers who will say "anything less than a 'clean break' [whatever the hell that is] isn't enough, so I'll vote it down".
But you also have Remainers who aren't obsessive about it, and feel there needs to be a compromise. There are a fair number who I suspect would vote for it out of a somewhat selfless desire for closure for everyone.
And you have dyed in the wool Corbynites who would want to support Corbyn's deal because it's his deal.
Well I would price it at 10% max.
Not sure who would campaign for it other than Caroline Flint.
Even our own Soft Brexit ultra - Richard Tyndall - says he would abstain.
At a guess, people who want to leave the EU.
I know there are a percentage of smart-arses on political websites who would convince themselves that, although they want to Leave, they won't vote to Leave even though the alternative is to Remain and lose the only real chance to get out of the door. But that argument defines "too clever by half".
I also suspect that an option which most politicians lined up against or were very half-hearted about would be somewhat attractive in itself.
Perhaps the “no10” source would like to spell out the consequences for our benefit and what they are actually envisaging for the future of the country. Because it sure ain’t a democratic country operating within the rule of law.
What a triumph for Brexiteers!
Any chance the Justice Secretary might show some backbone and actually do something about these briefings?
It's the Lord Chancellor, one Robert Buckland QC, who needs to show some backbone on this. He is under a legal duty to protect the judiciary.
Presumably he's too weak to do so and/or doesn't plan on reviving his legal career when this wretched government is turfed out of office.
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Firstly, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are heading for 300+ seats.
Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.
I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
Surely it's easy. Tough on Brexit, tough on the causes of Brexit. Address the 'left behind' with regional policies, plus continue with the very popular increase in lower tax threshhold. I don't know what their policy on Trident is nowadays, but I expect some money could be saved there and I don't think it would be that unpopular nowadays. A green new deal that would create jobs and ameliorate Climate Change could also be a priority.
The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come
We are headed to the rule of the mob. It reminds me a little of Zimbabwe. Until recently they had a strong and independent legal system provided that one’s case did not relate to politics. Unfortunately, the scope of the politics exclusion expanded.
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
Has no one considered that a 2nd referendum will probably be boycotted by Leavers? If it looks like Remain will win, there is nothing to gain by participating.
In such a scenario, the referendum will be just as divisive as revoking article 50.
The only way to maintain a semblance of national unity and cohesion would be to leave to EEA.
Unfortunately that is not politically viable.
We’re f*cked either way but we’re probably better off long-term being f*cked whilst remaining in the European Union.
🔶
I think EFTA/EEA is very much politically viable.
Tell that to @HYUFD please. That would be ‘betraying the leave voting working class’ apparently.
He toes the party line. If the party leadership shifted to an EFTA solution HYUFD would have a dozen arguments about why it is the best solution backed up by polling evidence showing how popular it is.
And the ERG and Farage would have even more arguments about why it was a betrayal. You just fundamentally don’t understand Brexiteers. If Brexit doesn’t pose an existential threat to the EU, then it will have been for nothing in their eyes.
I am afraid it is you with your extremist zealotry who don't understand Brexiteers. You will only acknowledge the arguments of the most extreme on thebopposite side from you because to concede there are more centrist cases would be to accept sone of the arguments for Brexit.
The trajectory since the vote proves that people like you and @rcs1000 were fools for rejecting Cameron’s deal.
The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come
If this is the policy it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of charity law. When a charity is wound up any remaining assets are usually distributed back to the donors. They are not simply there to be used at will by someone taking them. Any new rule would affect all sorts of other charities and it is very difficult to draft a law which only affects those charities which support a public school without catching other - presumably unintended - targets (eg a charity providing education for the disabled).
And then you have the ECHR.
So the whole matter is considerably more complex than some of the idiotic Labour groupies would have you believe.
I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.
I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.
A couple of months should knock that naivety out of you.
Perhaps the “no10” source would like to spell out the consequences for our benefit and what they are actually envisaging for the future of the country. Because it sure ain’t a democratic country operating within the rule of law.
What a triumph for Brexiteers!
Any chance the Justice Secretary might show some backbone and actually do something about these briefings?
It's the Lord Chancellor, one Robert Buckland QC, who needs to show some backbone on this. He is under a legal duty to protect the judiciary.
Presumably he's too weak to do so and/or doesn't plan on reviving his legal career when this wretched government is turfed out of office.
Er, the Justice Secretary IS the Lord Chancellor.
Yes I know. I was trying to make the point that he has a specific duty to protect the judiciary beyond simply what you'd expect from a bog standard Minister of Justice. (Poor phrasing by me. Sorry.) And he is a practising lawyer himself so should understand this point and be much much more robust.
Frankly, if he had any integrity he ought to resign from a government which seems so careless about the very idea of complying with the law.
I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.
Lucky you still got to choose your course - under Jezza the state will assign you to an education camp.
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Firstly, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are heading for 300+ seats.
Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.
I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
I think we're all so used to the LibDems massively underperforming expectations, that we assume it's going to happen again. (Disclaimer: it will probably happen again.)
But the next election is probably their best shot in a Century for getting a majority. The governing Conservative Party is fighting with BXP who can be more for "diamond Brexit". The Labour Party is run by uninspiring anti-semite, with no policy on the issue de jour, and otherwise unworkable policies.
Now, will this all come together and result in a LibDem majority? Probably not. But I think that @Byronic is probably right: Jo Swinson does seem disturbingly nice and normal, and she's preaching to a third of the population who've been abandoned by Labour and the Conservatives.
Winning a majority would mean winning seats where the Lib Dems are, as of now, practically non-existent (or maybe active in one Council ward). Is that possible on a national air-war and a freepost?, when at least one other party in those areas has a decent list of supporters, an MP, a bit of a presence?
I know they've advanced since 2017, but they lost their deposit in a sizable majority of seats (375) in 2017.
I don't think saying they should be looking at a few dozen seats is predicting "massive underperformance" - I think it's realistic and indeed quite ambitious.
Is it possible Swinson is the revelation of the campaign while Johnson and Corbyn stumble from disaster to disaster? In theory, yes. But the 15-1 on most seats and 50-1 on a majority don't strike me as generous by any means at all. They just start from such a low base and with too few areas where they have a competitive ground game.
I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.
Lucky you still got to choose your course - under Jezza the state will assign you to an education camp.
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Firstly, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are heading for 300+ seats.
Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.
I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
I think we're all so used to the LibDems massively underperforming expectations, that we assume it's going to happen again. (Disclaimer: it will probably happen again.)
But the next election is probably their best shot in a Century for getting a majority. The governing Conservative Party is fighting with BXP who can be more for "diamond Brexit". The Labour Party is run by uninspiring anti-semite, with no policy on the issue de jour, and otherwise unworkable policies.
Now, will this all come together and result in a LibDem majority? Probably not. But I think that @Byronic is probably right: Jo Swinson does seem disturbingly nice and normal, and she's preaching to a third of the population who've been abandoned by Labour and the Conservatives.
Winning a majority would mean winning seats where the Lib Dems are, as of now, practically non-existent (or maybe active in one Council ward). Is that possible on a national air-war and a freepost?, when at least one other party in those areas has a decent list of supporters, an MP, a bit of a presence?
I know they've advanced since 2017, but they lost their deposit in a sizable majority of seats (375) in 2017.
I don't think saying they should be looking at a few dozen seats is predicting "massive underperformance" - I think it's realistic and indeed quite ambitious.
Is it possible Swinson is the revelation of the campaign while Johnson and Corbyn stumble from disaster to disaster? In theory, yes. But the 15-1 on most seats and 50-1 on a majority don't strike me as generous by any means at all. They just start from such a low base and with too few areas where they have a competitive ground game.
Some people have been talking on PB for so long that the unicorn has entered their souls.
The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come
If this is the policy it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of charity law. When a charity is wound up any remaining assets are usually distributed back to the donors. They are not simply there to be used at will by someone taking them. Any new rule would affect all sorts of other charities and it is very difficult to draft a law which only affects those charities which support a public school without catching other - presumably unintended - targets (eg a charity providing education for the disabled).
And then you have the ECHR.
So the whole matter is considerably more complex than some of the idiotic Labour groupies would have you believe.
Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
When Foreign Secretary, Dr Owen would be tapped up by MI6 to provide health assessments of foreign leaders he'd met (he was a consultant neurologist, iirc). If Corbyn is stepping down this suddenly, and cannot do a full day, then we need pb's medical cadre to hold their stethoscopes to the television coverage and tell us what is wrong. House could do it.
I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.
Best of luck! At its best the law is a wonderful thing. I still love it, because it provides both intellectual interest and is also a fantastically practical skill to help resolve people's problems.
People love to hate lawyers but try living in a country without law and you'll understand why law matters.
Anyway, when I qualified as a barrister, my then boyfriend sent me a drawing with on it this quote from Goethe (allegedly): "A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilisation in decline." But, hey, what did he know?
When you think that something as tame as the Benefit Cap of £20k (more in London) was made a specific law by Parliament but only survived by a wafer thin 3-2 at the Supreme Court, there has to be every chance that these various Labour confiscation of assets measures would not survive the Courts, even if made law in Parliament.
Perhaps the “no10” source would like to spell out the consequences for our benefit and what they are actually envisaging for the future of the country. Because it sure ain’t a democratic country operating within the rule of law.
What a triumph for Brexiteers!
Any chance the Justice Secretary might show some backbone and actually do something about these briefings?
It's the Lord Chancellor, one Robert Buckland QC, who needs to show some backbone on this. He is under a legal duty to protect the judiciary.
Presumably he's too weak to do so and/or doesn't plan on reviving his legal career when this wretched government is turfed out of office.
Er, the Justice Secretary IS the Lord Chancellor.
Yes I know. I was trying to make the point that he has a specific duty to protect the judiciary beyond simply what you'd expect from a bog standard Minister of Justice. (Poor phrasing by me. Sorry.) And he is a practising lawyer himself so should understand this point and be much much more robust.
Frankly, if he had any integrity he ought to resign from a government which seems so careless about the very idea of complying with the law.
Ok, sorry! For my part didn’t name the Justice Secretary at random... but for exactly the reasons you gave...
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
Doesn't Corbyn have the party by the short and curlies?
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
When Foreign Secretary, Dr Owen would be tapped up by MI6 to provide health assessments of foreign leaders he'd met (he was a consultant neurologist, iirc). If Corbyn is stepping down this suddenly, and cannot do a full day, then we need pb's medical cadre to hold their stethoscopes to the television coverage and tell us what is wrong. House could do it.
I think in this case the tweet was implying political problems, not medical ones... ie he is trying to put down an imminent move against him.
Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice: "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Firstly, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are heading for 300+ seats.
Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.
I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
Surely it's easy. Tough on Brexit, tough on the causes of Brexit. Address the 'left behind' with regional policies, plus continue with the very popular increase in lower tax threshhold. I don't know what their policy on Trident is nowadays, but I expect some money could be saved there and I don't think it would be that unpopular nowadays. A green new deal that would create jobs and ameliorate Climate Change could also be a priority.
That's a perfectly okay collection of potentially popular policies. As I say, the Lib Dems don't lack adopted policies. I don't think it amounts to a narrative to replace "I'm voting Lib Dem to stop Brexit".
I get it for Labour - "screw 10% of people to help out 90%" (or "for the many not the few" as the more tactful version goes). And they have a suite of policies behind that. I don't agree with it, and think you'd realise so little by screwing the 10% in practice, that the 90% would be terribly disappointed. But I get the story.
It's harder for the Lib Dems because they've been very focused on Brexit. It's harder for the Tories too, to be fair. Johnson likes bread and circuses initiatives but isn't in any way a visionary, and I can't identify one of his colleagues who is working on it behind the scenes.
Bold prediction - if Labour survive Brexit without an electoral meltdown, remain hard left but shove the old man aside ("cheers, Jez, for reclaiming our party - here's your gold watch, now f*** off to your allotment, you antisemitic relic"), they are quite well placed for the following election. Their trouble is surviving reasonably intact, so badly have they handled Brexit.
I’d Corbyn is under pressure, then does it follow that makes a quick vote for an election more likely? Feels like he may as well roll the dice. There again that would require the assent of the PLP. It just feels like “let’s watch the PM stew in his own juices” is less fun if you’re being cooked yourself.
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
Doesn't Cornyn have the party by the short and curlies?
It’s the Jezza party now - they will never add the members required to oust this Junta.
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
Doesn't Cornyn have the party by the short and curlies?
It’s the Jezza party now - they will never add the members required to oust this Junta.
If it consigns Labour to the scrapheap, so be it, but the must be an opposition to the loons in the Tories
I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.
Best of luck! At its best the law is a wonderful thing. I still love it, because it provides both intellectual interest and is also a fantastically practical skill to help resolve people's problems.
People love to hate lawyers but try living in a country without law and you'll understand why law matters.
Anyway, when I qualified as a barrister, my then boyfriend sent me a drawing with on it this quote from Goethe (allegedly): "A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilisation in decline." But, hey, what did he know?
Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
Doesn't Cornyn have the party by the short and curlies?
It’s the Jezza party now - they will never add the members required to oust this Junta.
I don't know. It's a hard left party now, but Corbyn-mania has really faded.
There are a percentage of Labour folk - quite a big percentage - who have no appetite to return to the bad old days (as they'd see it) of New Labour, but also accept Corbyn has served his purpose.
Yes, there are zealots, but there are also people on the hard left who are NOT antisemitic and realise Corbyn has mishandled it appallingly (very probably due to some misplaced personal sympathy), are pro-European and realise Corbyn is not, and basically see him as damage goods, a husk of what they elected (twice).
I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.
Best of luck! At its best the law is a wonderful thing. I still love it, because it provides both intellectual interest and is also a fantastically practical skill to help resolve people's problems.
People love to hate lawyers but try living in a country without law and you'll understand why law matters.
Anyway, when I qualified as a barrister, my then boyfriend sent me a drawing with on it this quote from Goethe (allegedly): "A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilisation in decline." But, hey, what did he know?
The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come
If this is the policy it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of charity law. When a charity is wound up any remaining assets are usually distributed back to the donors. They are not simply there to be used at will by someone taking them. Any new rule would affect all sorts of other charities and it is very difficult to draft a law which only affects those charities which support a public school without catching other - presumably unintended - targets (eg a charity providing education for the disabled).
And then you have the ECHR.
So the whole matter is considerably more complex than some of the idiotic Labour groupies would have you believe.
Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.
There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.
I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
Glancing at the Canadian polls, the rolling Nanos poll has a lower Conservative elad - down from 4.8% to 2.6% while Mainstream OTOH has its first Conservative lead of 0.9% from yesterday's Liberal lead of 1.7%.
A Forum Research national poll has Liberals and Conservatives tied on 33% , NDP and Greens tied on 11%, BQ on 10% and the People's Party of Canada on 5%.
That's a swing of about 3.5% from Liberal to Conservative from 2015 but again I always urge caution on national numbers. Clearly, both BQ and Green are well up on 2015 and PPC is probably pulling votes from Scheer's Conservatives.
I still think Trudeau will lose his majority but it's a toss up which of the Liberals and Conservatives would be largest party - so much depends on Ontario and Quebec where 199 of the 338 ridings are located.
Details of the YouGov last week have the Tories ahead with 25 -49 year olds on 26% to 25% each for Labour and the LDs, reversing the 2017 situation where the Tories only led with over 47 year olds and returning to the situation in 2015 where the Tories led with over 35s.
Labour meanwhile are fourth with 50 to 64s on just 18% to 31% for the Tories and 21% for the LDs and 19% for the Brexit Party and with over 65s Labour have collapsed to just 8% with the Tories on a hefty 49% and the LDs on 19% (though Labour do lead with 18 to 24s still).
In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.
What comes after is PR.
What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.
That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.
I'm a PR supporter, but it does not automatically follow that we get sensible consensus politics as a result of PR, so I think you are overselling it a bit.
The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come
If this is the policy it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of charity law. When a charity is wound up any remaining assets are usually distributed back to the donors. They are not simply there to be used at will by someone taking them. Any new rule would affect all sorts of other charities and it is very difficult to draft a law which only affects those charities which support a public school without catching other - presumably unintended - targets (eg a charity providing education for the disabled).
And then you have the ECHR.
So the whole matter is considerably more complex than some of the idiotic Labour groupies would have you believe.
Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.
There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.
I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law. Which is what I think you’re saying. Some are probably not even charities.
And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
Details of the YouGov last week have the Tories ahead with 25 -49 year olds on 26% to 25% each for Labour and the LDs, reversing the 2017 situation where the Tories only led with over 47 year olds and returning to the situation in 2015 where the Tories led with over 35s.
Labour meanwhile are fourth with 50 to 64s on just 18% to 31% for the Tories and 21% for the LDs and 19% for the Brexit Party and with over 65s Labour have collapsed to just 8% with the Tories on a hefty 49% and the LDs on 19% (though Labour do lead with 18 to 24s still).
Glancing at the Canadian polls, the rolling Nanos poll has a lower Conservative elad - down from 4.8% to 2.6% while Mainstream OTOH has its first Conservative lead of 0.9% from yesterday's Liberal lead of 1.7%.
A Forum Research national poll has Liberals and Conservatives tied on 33% , NDP and Greens tied on 11%, BQ on 10% and the People's Party of Canada on 5%.
That's a swing of about 3.5% from Liberal to Conservative from 2015 but again I always urge caution on national numbers. Clearly, both BQ and Green are well up on 2015 and PPC is probably pulling votes from Scheer's Conservatives.
I still think Trudeau will lose his majority but it's a toss up which of the Liberals and Conservatives would be largest party - so much depends on Ontario and Quebec where 199 of the 338 ridings are located.
Looks like the blackface affair has not damaged Trudeau much then and it is largely as we were last weekend ie still a toss up for largest party
Comments
Their only way out now realistically is if an extension happens, followed by an election, for which they don’t get the blame and can officially claim to still be pursuing a deal or no deal policy.
It makes for a very cynical national debate, so often I assume my opponents couldn't care less about what they are saying but instead just looking for attack angles. I think my cynicism is well founded but there must be some genuine people out there that I just dismiss because they blend into the crowd.
So, in some Remain-y London seats, you could see the Conservatives winning on a high 30s vote share, while LibDem, Green and Labour carve up the Remain vote.
And in some Leave-y places in the South West, you could see the Conservatives and Brexit Party splitting the Leave vote, and letting the LibDems in.
Presumably it's for the voters' benefit, but which ones? Brexit Party voters who think Boris Johnson is a big girl's blouse?
Do me a favour.
Let's be divided with a functioning export market, rather than divided with everything on fire.
A bit like Inception which, whilst a good film, was a bit cr@p scifi-wise. Quite why anyone thought it was 'complex' is beyond me.
(If you want a truly complex sci-fi film, look no further than Primer. It is truly excellent. And once you have watched it, go and read the explanations for what you have just watched:
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/primer-chart.jpg
"What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."
Given we still have no idea what type of Brexit we will have, if we have one at all, how can anyone get ready for Brexit?
What a farce; what a waste of money.
And people agitate for them for be more Remainy.
😞
But you'd have hoped Cameron's claim might have been caught in the editing process. According to Allison Pearson's Telegraph review, the publisher had already forced a cut of 100,000 words for length.
Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.
I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
There will be some Brexiteers who will say "anything less than a 'clean break' [whatever the hell that is] isn't enough, so I'll vote it down".
But you also have Remainers who aren't obsessive about it, and feel there needs to be a compromise. There are a fair number who I suspect would vote for it out of a somewhat selfless desire for closure for everyone.
And you have dyed in the wool Corbynites who would want to support Corbyn's deal because it's his deal.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1175832507415244800?s=19
*chortle*
Not sure who would campaign for it other than Caroline Flint.
Even our own Soft Brexit ultra - Richard Tyndall - says he would abstain.
Presumably he's too weak to do so and/or doesn't plan on reviving his legal career when this wretched government is turfed out of office.
But the next election is probably their best shot in a Century for getting a majority. The governing Conservative Party is fighting with BXP who can be more for "diamond Brexit". The Labour Party is run by uninspiring anti-semite, with no policy on the issue de jour, and otherwise unworkable policies.
Now, will this all come together and result in a LibDem majority? Probably not. But I think that @Byronic is probably right: Jo Swinson does seem disturbingly nice and normal, and she's preaching to a third of the population who've been abandoned by Labour and the Conservatives.
I know there are a percentage of smart-arses on political websites who would convince themselves that, although they want to Leave, they won't vote to Leave even though the alternative is to Remain and lose the only real chance to get out of the door. But that argument defines "too clever by half".
I also suspect that an option which most politicians lined up against or were very half-hearted about would be somewhat attractive in itself.
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/1175836759789318144?s=21
Tough on Brexit, tough on the causes of Brexit.
Address the 'left behind' with regional policies, plus continue with the very popular increase in lower tax threshhold. I don't know what their policy on Trident is nowadays, but I expect some money could be saved there and I don't think it would be that unpopular nowadays.
A green new deal that would create jobs and ameliorate Climate Change could also be a priority.
If this is the policy it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of charity law. When a charity is wound up any remaining assets are usually distributed back to the donors. They are not simply there to be used at will by someone taking them. Any new rule would affect all sorts of other charities and it is very difficult to draft a law which only affects those charities which support a public school without catching other - presumably unintended - targets (eg a charity providing education for the disabled).
And then you have the ECHR.
So the whole matter is considerably more complex than some of the idiotic Labour groupies would have you believe.
Frankly, if he had any integrity he ought to resign from a government which seems so careless about the very idea of complying with the law.
I know they've advanced since 2017, but they lost their deposit in a sizable majority of seats (375) in 2017.
I don't think saying they should be looking at a few dozen seats is predicting "massive underperformance" - I think it's realistic and indeed quite ambitious.
Is it possible Swinson is the revelation of the campaign while Johnson and Corbyn stumble from disaster to disaster? In theory, yes. But the 15-1 on most seats and 50-1 on a majority don't strike me as generous by any means at all. They just start from such a low base and with too few areas where they have a competitive ground game.
People love to hate lawyers but try living in a country without law and you'll understand why law matters.
Anyway, when I qualified as a barrister, my then boyfriend sent me a drawing with on it this quote from Goethe (allegedly): "A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilisation in decline." But, hey, what did he know?
(PS the boyfriend did not last.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3uea-Hvy4
I get it for Labour - "screw 10% of people to help out 90%" (or "for the many not the few" as the more tactful version goes). And they have a suite of policies behind that. I don't agree with it, and think you'd realise so little by screwing the 10% in practice, that the 90% would be terribly disappointed. But I get the story.
It's harder for the Lib Dems because they've been very focused on Brexit. It's harder for the Tories too, to be fair. Johnson likes bread and circuses initiatives but isn't in any way a visionary, and I can't identify one of his colleagues who is working on it behind the scenes.
Bold prediction - if Labour survive Brexit without an electoral meltdown, remain hard left but shove the old man aside ("cheers, Jez, for reclaiming our party - here's your gold watch, now f*** off to your allotment, you antisemitic relic"), they are quite well placed for the following election. Their trouble is surviving reasonably intact, so badly have they handled Brexit.
The LD's ?
A. I can't tell you for legal reasons!
There are a percentage of Labour folk - quite a big percentage - who have no appetite to return to the bad old days (as they'd see it) of New Labour, but also accept Corbyn has served his purpose.
Yes, there are zealots, but there are also people on the hard left who are NOT antisemitic and realise Corbyn has mishandled it appallingly (very probably due to some misplaced personal sympathy), are pro-European and realise Corbyn is not, and basically see him as damage goods, a husk of what they elected (twice).
There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.
I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
Glancing at the Canadian polls, the rolling Nanos poll has a lower Conservative elad - down from 4.8% to 2.6% while Mainstream OTOH has its first Conservative lead of 0.9% from yesterday's Liberal lead of 1.7%.
A Forum Research national poll has Liberals and Conservatives tied on 33% , NDP and Greens tied on 11%, BQ on 10% and the People's Party of Canada on 5%.
That's a swing of about 3.5% from Liberal to Conservative from 2015 but again I always urge caution on national numbers. Clearly, both BQ and Green are well up on 2015 and PPC is probably pulling votes from Scheer's Conservatives.
I still think Trudeau will lose his majority but it's a toss up which of the Liberals and Conservatives would be largest party - so much depends on Ontario and Quebec where 199 of the 338 ridings are located.
What comes after is PR.
What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.
That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.
Labour meanwhile are fourth with 50 to 64s on just 18% to 31% for the Tories and 21% for the LDs and 19% for the Brexit Party and with over 65s Labour have collapsed to just 8% with the Tories on a hefty 49% and the LDs on 19% (though Labour do lead with 18 to 24s still).
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dcvjryxlw9/TheTimes_190918_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dcvjryxlw9/TheTimes_190918_VI_Trackers_w.pdf