The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
The ludicrous bit is them campaigning against the deal they negotiated.
Some posters seem to think the regional polls today will remain static .
As for the London poll , YouGov five weeks before the last election had Labour only five points ahead of the Tories 41 v 36 .
The end result on the day Labour 54 Tory 33 . Not saying that will definitely happen this time but really all these obituaries being written for Labour ignore the fact that there’s 5 weeks till the election .
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
Having grown up in this seat I wish I had some kind of fascinating insight to share. My model has it as an SNP hold. The Lib Dems presumably will garner much of the anti-independence vote though, which was probably around 60% in 2014 I would guess but may be lower now as the area is very strongly pro-Remain and the Brexit vote has probably tipped more people towards the SNP. Ming Campbell had a very strong personal vote, I don't know how Gethins is viewed locally. The really fascinating thing is that the seat used to be a safe Tory one (including on slightly different boundaries before 1983) but it's impossible to imagine them winning now. Any London based journalists looking to cover distant marginals should opt for this seat over Workington, it's a lovely part of the world, although only gets about half an hour of sunlight in December.
That's more sunlight than Workington gets at any time of year.
Rich people leave their money to their children. Poor people leave their children nothing. The more you tax inheritances, the less goes to the undeserving rich (who've already had their parents buy them an education and a fair wallop of intra-vivos gifts while they were alive).
The lack of progress by the Labour party in taxing inherited wealth out of existence is yet another example of how, behind its populist mask, the Corbyn and Milne-run ramp is just a bunch of poshos wanting to keep their nest well-feathered.
So... inheritance tax promotes social mobility then?
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
The ludicrous bit is them campaigning against the deal they negotiated.
That's exactly what a bunch of cabinet ministers did in 2016.
Exactly the split the LDs would want. Makes inner Labour seats more vulnerable and SW London Conservative seats even more at risk.
Obviously Richmond is going yellow, but can they really win any other London seats from the Tories? Wimbledon is a 21% swing and they're in 3rd so will be very tough on those numbers.
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
Wimbledon is my bellweather seat in SW London as Labour have gone AWOL, I agree it is unlikely, but this makes it possible. However the wider point is that I had regarded City and Kensington as probably out of reach; not now with a collapse in Labour to switch. It also puts Hornsey into play.
LDs in London could win:
Richmond Park Kensington Cities of London & Westminster Finchley & Golders Green Putney Wimbledon Sutton & Cheam Hornsey & Wood Green (unlikely) Bermondsey & Old Southwark (unlikely) Hampstead & Kilburn (unlikely)
I'll be doing a piece on the Lib Dems at some point, but I'd have thought that they can reasonably hope to be in the mix for:
Richmond Park Bermondsey & Old Southwark Sutton & Cheam Finchley & Golders Green Putney Hornsey & Wood Green Wimbledon Vauxhall Cities of London & Westminster Kensington Islington South & Finsbury Hampstead & Kilburn Chelsea & Fulham
I rate these in decreasing order of likelihood. Four looks like the outside best to me on this list, unless something unlikely happens.
Alastair, I am very interested in Cheltenham, which should go yellow but which you clearly think won't. I know you think Alex Chalk is sufficiently remainy to appeal, but other factors point yellow. I would like you to cover Cheltenham in your article if possible, thanks.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
On topic, and generally: With lots of MPs standing down and some switching parties, we need to pay even more attention than usual to the profiles of the candidates standing. This is especially so because of the Brexit divide.
Alastair mentions Cities of London and Westminster, where Mark Field is standing down and Chuka Umunna has been carpet-bombing innocent residents with leaflets, bar-charts and spurious questionnaires. He has certainly raised the LibDem profile here.
I've been holding off betting on this constituency because I wanted to see who the Conservatives selected in this very strongly Remain voting seat. The chosen candidate is Nickie Aiken, Leader of Westminster City Council, and a moderate Remainer at the referendum. She looks a really excellent choice for this constituency, making the Evens or better you can get on a Tory hold a good bet IMHO .
Richard, was she part of the Council that distinguished itself in the Grenfell Towers business?
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
It wouldn't be a negotiation.
Labour would request the EU fax over their demands and that would be the deal.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Imagine Dave's Deal contained everything the Tory sceptics could possibly demand...
Pengelly looks like toast in South Belfast with BOTH Sinn Fein (Whose voters will surely go to the SDLP) and the Greens (Who have endorsed the SDLP) standing aside there.
South Belfast is the constituency that The Fall (the TV thriller with Gillian Anderson) was mostly shot in. It's very middle class and the DUP were always an odd fit for it.
More generally, the DUP have a major problem, facing a pincer movement all around Northern Ireland. They could easily lose Belfasts North, East and South, and South Antrim.
You mean the sort of misrepresentation that Labour (and the Lib Dems) cynically indulged in during the 2017 campaign?
Against a policy that "made sense on every level", and grasped a long-overdue political nettle?
As opposed to taxing inheritance as income, which goes against the long-established principle of not taxing the same source of income twice?
Last para is nonsense.
But, yes, your main point, I do mean exactly that. May's "Dementia Tax" was a GREAT policy. It was clever and brave and right. The fact it cost a ton of votes was truly depressing. Same thing happened with Burnham's attempt in 2010. The "Death Tax".
Some posters seem to think the regional polls today will remain static .
As for the London poll , YouGov five weeks before the last election had Labour only five points ahead of the Tories 41 v 36 .
The end result on the day Labour 54 Tory 33 . Not saying that will definitely happen this time but really all these obituaries being written for Labour ignore the fact that there’s 5 weeks till the election .
That is so. However, I do think that the 45 - 49% vote share for the Conservatives and TBP is pretty sticky.
Labour *can* win if they can really squeeze the Lib Dems, and TBP starts polling above 15% but I think that's a long shot (but not impossible),
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
It wouldn't be a negotiation.
Labour would request the EU fax over their demands and that would be the deal.
We already have the two possible versions of the Withdrawal Agreement based on whether or not we'll accept a customs border in the Irish Sea. Unless Labour want anything seriously wacky in the political declaration, it won't take much effort to come up with a Labour Deal.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
Yes, it is arbitrary and unfair - rather like income tax, corporation tax, cgt, VAT etc.
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
It wouldn't be a negotiation.
Labour would request the EU fax over their demands and that would be the deal.
And if they faxed over May's deal or Boris's deal, what then? I really don't understand how Labour can think that this is a defensible policy. It's just bonkers.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
Because it is in the EU interest? We were told last time that there could be no renegotiation but one leadership election later, lo and behold, there was.
Having grown up in this seat I wish I had some kind of fascinating insight to share. My model has it as an SNP hold. The Lib Dems presumably will garner much of the anti-independence vote though, which was probably around 60% in 2014 I would guess but may be lower now as the area is very strongly pro-Remain and the Brexit vote has probably tipped more people towards the SNP. Ming Campbell had a very strong personal vote, I don't know how Gethins is viewed locally. The really fascinating thing is that the seat used to be a safe Tory one (including on slightly different boundaries before 1983) but it's impossible to imagine them winning now. Any London based journalists looking to cover distant marginals should opt for this seat over Workington, it's a lovely part of the world, although only gets about half an hour of sunlight in December.
That's more sunlight than Workington gets at any time of year.
I remember going to Workington during November 2000. It had rained there for 63 consecutive days.
Exactly the split the LDs would want. Makes inner Labour seats more vulnerable and SW London Conservative seats even more at risk.
Obviously Richmond is going yellow, but can they really win any other London seats from the Tories? Wimbledon is a 21% swing and they're in 3rd so will be very tough on those numbers.
Bermondsey and Vauxhall are strong chances of being gains from Labour and Luciana Berger and Chukka have a chance but that's 6 possible gains max IMO and only Richmond and Bermondsey are very likely.
Wimbledon is my bellweather seat in SW London as Labour have gone AWOL, I agree it is unlikely, but this makes it possible. However the wider point is that I had regarded City and Kensington as probably out of reach; not now with a collapse in Labour to switch. It also puts Hornsey into play.
LDs in London could win:
Richmond Park Kensington Cities of London & Westminster Finchley & Golders Green Putney Wimbledon Sutton & Cheam Hornsey & Wood Green (unlikely) Bermondsey & Old Southwark (unlikely) Hampstead & Kilburn (unlikely)
I'll be doing a piece on the Lib Dems at some point, but I'd have thought that they can reasonably hope to be in the mix for:
Richmond Park Bermondsey & Old Southwark Sutton & Cheam Finchley & Golders Green Putney Hornsey & Wood Green Wimbledon Vauxhall Cities of London & Westminster Kensington Islington South & Finsbury Hampstead & Kilburn Chelsea & Fulham
I rate these in decreasing order of likelihood. Four looks like the outside best to me on this list, unless something unlikely happens.
Alastair, I am very interested in Cheltenham, which should go yellow but which you clearly think won't. I know you think Alex Chalk is sufficiently remainy to appeal, but other factors point yellow. I would like you to cover Cheltenham in your article if possible, thanks.
I do think Cheltenham will probably go Lib Dem. I don't think it's quite as obvious as the betting suggests.
Anyway, next up will be Labour, when I have time. (The current plan is Labour, Lib Dem, SNP/Scotland in general, Wales, Northern Ireland). I'm open to requests.
The best thing for the Tories to do with Inheritance tax is simply leave it where it is and move it up with CPI or something.
Better to focus efforts on lowering the lowest bands of tax.
The best strategy to benefit poorer taxpayers and not subsidise the more wealthy is to raise the primary threshold for NI (which is equivalent to income tax) from £8,500 to £12,500 and then keep income tax and NI thresholds in line.
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
Yes, it is arbitrary and unfair - rather like income tax, corporation tax, cgt, VAT etc.
Edit: To be honest, i would abolish it myself simply on the grounds of not worth bothering with, but I don't see any tax as being inherently fair and reasonable. They can all be made to work, or fail, according to how they are implemented and managed.
Having grown up in this seat I wish I had some kind of fascinating insight to share. My model has it as an SNP hold. The Lib Dems presumably will garner much of the anti-independence vote though, which was probably around 60% in 2014 I would guess but may be lower now as the area is very strongly pro-Remain and the Brexit vote has probably tipped more people towards the SNP. Ming Campbell had a very strong personal vote, I don't know how Gethins is viewed locally. The really fascinating thing is that the seat used to be a safe Tory one (including on slightly different boundaries before 1983) but it's impossible to imagine them winning now. Any London based journalists looking to cover distant marginals should opt for this seat over Workington, it's a lovely part of the world, although only gets about half an hour of sunlight in December.
That's more sunlight than Workington gets at any time of year.
I remember going to Workington during November 2000. It had rained there for 63 consecutive days.
You were lucky. Winter o' 78 we had to get to school in a barge pulled by otters. But we were happy.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
Because it is in the EU interest? We were told last time that there could be no renegotiation but one leadership election later, lo and behold, there was.
There is the world of difference between negotiating with someone who wants a deal (and, boy, did Boris want a deal) and someone who is not willing to support it. Surely the EU have had enough of negotiating deals that we prove not willing to support (or at least those soon to be ex MPs in Parliament were unwilling to support).
Some posters seem to think the regional polls today will remain static .
As for the London poll , YouGov five weeks before the last election had Labour only five points ahead of the Tories 41 v 36 .
The end result on the day Labour 54 Tory 33 . Not saying that will definitely happen this time but really all these obituaries being written for Labour ignore the fact that there’s 5 weeks till the election .
You're right of course about 2017.
This election feels different though.
Unlike last time where it was a case of guessing how big May's majority was going to be - which allowed voters to safely cast their votes for Corbyn - this one seems completely different in as much as the threat is very real now of a Labour led government.
My guess is we are all fighting the last war and the intervening couple of years have hardened voting intentions such that we won't see much of a late surge.
Maybe that is me expressing hope over reason though.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It has the most Remainy policy that is practically possible. And it is very Remainy. How else to describe a policy that will doubtless lead to Remain! Calling it ludicrous is, well, ludicrous. I will admit that I personally preferred the old position of Soft Brexit, no Ref2.
And if they faxed over May's deal or Boris's deal, what then? I really don't understand how Labour can think that this is a defensible policy. It's just bonkers.
It isn't defensible, it is utterly ludicrous but it is less ludicrous (politically) than coming down on one side or the other.
Labour's deal will already be written and agreed with copies in Corbyn and Tusk's safes.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
Just to expand on this a bit, I work as a software engineer, and it's very common in my day-to-day work life to have a conversation with stakeholders like:
Stakeholder: We want feature X Me: Okay, but there's some complexity Y you haven't thought of there, which on balance makes X a bad idea. I think we shouldn't do it. S: I understand, but we'd like to go ahead anyway. (Later) M: So I've gone ahead and made a prototype of X. You can try the demo. Here's what I meant about Y, and here's another issue, Z, which neither of us considered before. I still think it's a bad idea, especially in light of Z, but would you like me to go ahead and implement a final version?
Now at no point has anybody ever come back to me saying "I can't possibly wrap my head around the idea that you're willing to implement X while simultaneously advocating against it. The very idea is absurd!" Nor have they responded with "How dare you ask me again, I already told you what I wanted and asking again totally undermines my agency to make decisions!" Which is why both of those arguments have always struck me as rather disingenuous in the context of Brexit.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
What if they got that great deal? Or are you saying that no deal is better than remain (which a fair few Lab Cabinet members have said)? In which case what are you negotiating? And why?
So the question again - if the deal is everything Lab wants, will they campaign for or against it?
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
Well said. IHT and the tapered Annual Allowance are my 2 most hated taxes....
Having grown up in this seat I wish I had some kind of fascinating insight to share. My model has it as an SNP hold. The Lib Dems presumably will garner much of the anti-independence vote though, which was probably around 60% in 2014 I would guess but may be lower now as the area is very strongly pro-Remain and the Brexit vote has probably tipped more people towards the SNP. Ming Campbell had a very strong personal vote, I don't know how Gethins is viewed locally. The really fascinating thing is that the seat used to be a safe Tory one (including on slightly different boundaries before 1983) but it's impossible to imagine them winning now. Any London based journalists looking to cover distant marginals should opt for this seat over Workington, it's a lovely part of the world, although only gets about half an hour of sunlight in December.
That's more sunlight than Workington gets at any time of year.
I remember going to Workington during November 2000. It had rained there for 63 consecutive days.
I started work, post college, in Manchester in August 1961. It rained for at least some part of each day for a month. Or at least seemed to. As an Essex boy I was astounded; there couldn't, I thought, be that much water in the sky.
Question before the new thread comes and curses me.
What is the status of UKIP this election? Rudderless and without a clue, but do we know if they are to stand candidates and if so, where/how many?
UKIP really don't seem to be troubling the scorers anymore. It would be nice if TBP got to a similar status but its unlikely before the election.
I've just been to their website to try and find out myself, but I'm none the wiser. They don't even seem to acknowledge a GE is underway, and they still seem to have articles by Richard Braine up.
With no leader, and no obvious named 'Election 2019' section, I'm going to take it they're not going to bother therefore.
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
Well said. IHT and the tapered Annual Allowance are my 2 most hated taxes....
I presumed it was just joining on the new twitter game of posting such a rumour in order to boost retweet and follower numbers - adding in a joke perhaps about how Boris does seem to like the odd porky pie...
IHT makes a trivial contribution to the tax take. In my days in the biz, it was always regarded as the most avoidable of taxes. The convential wisdom was that it was only paid by the poorly advised, the lazy and the unlucky.
That is exactly why IHT is so unpopular: it is arbitrary and unfair however you look at it. Some beneficiaries end up losing up to 40% of their inheritance, and others either by accident or careful planning lose nothing.
Well said. IHT and the tapered Annual Allowance are my 2 most hated taxes....
I thought you were a financial adviser?
Yup - creates loads of work personally but I still hate them both on principle!
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
Because the EU is happy regardless , either way . The UK leaves with a deal which is a softer Brexit or it Remains .
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
What if they got that great deal? Or are you saying that no deal is better than remain (which a fair few Lab Cabinet members have said)? In which case what are you negotiating? And why?
So the question again - if the deal is everything Lab wants, will they campaign for or against it?
You're negotiating the best deal you can because you believe it's wrong to cancel Brexit without a referendum, and that it'd be insane to have that referendum between anything other than Remain and the best possible deal you can get.
The Brexit position is ludicrous because your party is neither for nor against it. You spent quite some time yesterday telling me how cowardly such an approach was. Whatever the details referendum this, practical that, your party, as indeed you were telling me only yesterday, should have a position. It doesn't. That is a failure. And ludicrous.
It has the most Remainy policy that is practically possible. And it is very Remainy. How else to describe a policy that will doubtless lead to Remain! Calling it ludicrous is, well, ludicrous. I will admit that I personally preferred the old position of Soft Brexit, no Ref2.
Negotiate a deal and then advise against it.
Ponder on that.
Then ponder on the fact that we don't, as it stands, know whether Labour is for Leave or Remain. That is as ludicrous.
You told us Labour should be leaders and not bow to public opinion if the party believed that something was the right thing to do. So what is the right thing to do with Brexit? Leave or Remain?
Regarding Wrexham, North Wales is an interesting area generally for the Tories. Labour are sitting on small majorities in 5 seats iirc. inc Wrexhamn- Clwyd South, Delyn, Vale of Clywyd and Alyn & Deeside while polling poorly in Wales as a whole. A disproportionate part of this poor performance likely to be in the north. In a tight election, 5 seats could be a lot
Afternoon all, back after some time away at some chess tourneys. Interesting read from Alistair, Norwich North is next door to me and I tipped it to go against the head in 2017, but was (just) wrong. I expect it to remain Tory this time but Norwich is not easy for the blues, Norwich north has much more of the wealthier suburbia than Clive Lewis patch which is much more Norwich central and UEA though where I am and avoids most of the uni housing areas. No sign of placards yet in Norwich south but I get a pretty good flavour of how sticky the lab vote is once they do and, possibly crucially, if the Lib Dems who held here in 2010 have any presence returning
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
Just to expand on this a bit, I work as a software engineer, and it's very common in my day-to-day work life to have a conversation with stakeholders like:
Stakeholder: We want feature X Me: Okay, but there's some complexity Y you haven't thought of there, which on balance makes X a bad idea. I think we shouldn't do it. S: I understand, but we'd like to go ahead anyway. (Later) M: So I've gone ahead and made a prototype of X. You can try the demo. Here's what I meant about Y, and here's another issue, Z, which neither of us considered before. I still think it's a bad idea, especially in light of Z, but would you like me to go ahead and implement a final version?
Now at no point has anybody ever come back to me saying "I can't possibly wrap my head around the idea that you're willing to implement X while simultaneously advocating against it. The very idea is absurd!" Nor have they responded with "How dare you ask me again, I already told you what I wanted and asking again totally undermines my agency to make decisions!" Which is why both of those arguments have always struck me as rather disingenuous in the context of Brexit.
Except, unlike you as software engineer, Labour tried to have it both ways from the start.
Here's an example that might help: A defence lawyer negotiates a plea deal with the prosecution, but then advises their client against taking it because they think they're likely to win the case. Does that make sense?
Having Starmer and Thornberry lead the negotiations when they are committed to remain is the ludicrous part of it. Why not let Labour brexiteers do the negotiation part?
I suppose that could be better optics. But the Deal would be the same. We know now what it is. It's Norway Plus. BINO.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
What if they got that great deal? Or are you saying that no deal is better than remain (which a fair few Lab Cabinet members have said)? In which case what are you negotiating? And why?
So the question again - if the deal is everything Lab wants, will they campaign for or against it?
You're negotiating the best deal you can because you believe it's wrong to cancel Brexit without a referendum, and that it'd be insane to have that referendum between anything other than Remain and the best possible deal you can get.
But aside from all that, what does (the) Labour (leadership) want? To cancel Brexit or to get that best possible deal?
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
Just to expand on this a bit, I work as a software engineer, and it's very common in my day-to-day work life to have a conversation with stakeholders like:
Stakeholder: We want feature X Me: Okay, but there's some complexity Y you haven't thought of there, which on balance makes X a bad idea. I think we shouldn't do it. S: I understand, but we'd like to go ahead anyway. (Later) M: So I've gone ahead and made a prototype of X. You can try the demo. Here's what I meant about Y, and here's another issue, Z, which neither of us considered before. I still think it's a bad idea, especially in light of Z, but would you like me to go ahead and implement a final version?
Now at no point has anybody ever come back to me saying "I can't possibly wrap my head around the idea that you're willing to implement X while simultaneously advocating against it. The very idea is absurd!" Nor have they responded with "How dare you ask me again, I already told you what I wanted and asking again totally undermines my agency to make decisions!" Which is why both of those arguments have always struck me as rather disingenuous in the context of Brexit.
Except, unlike you as software engineer, Labour tried to have it both ways from the start.
Haven't I "tried to have it both ways" too? I'm simultaneously advocating for one position while agreeing to implement- and spending considerable effort working out how best to implement- the other position.
And there is also the bizarre idea that the EU is going to negotiate a 3rd agreement with the UK without any confidence that the government of the day is actually going to promote or support that deal in a subsequent referendum. Why on earth should they waste their time doing that?
Because it gives them a win win. The UK chooses either to Remain or to as good as Remain.
Here's an example that might help: A defence lawyer negotiates a plea deal with the prosecution, but then advises their client against taking it because they think they're likely to win the case. Does that make sense?
Apples and chalk. I am no defence lawyer (and neither are you) but even if they do negotiate plea deals with the prosecution (according to my extensive experience gained via TV mini-series) it is the client who decides not to take it. The lawyer acts according to her own beliefs. ie if they think they can win the case why are they negotiating a plea deal?
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
What if they got that great deal? Or are you saying that no deal is better than remain (which a fair few Lab Cabinet members have said)? In which case what are you negotiating? And why?
So the question again - if the deal is everything Lab wants, will they campaign for or against it?
You're negotiating the best deal you can because you believe it's wrong to cancel Brexit without a referendum, and that it'd be insane to have that referendum between anything other than Remain and the best possible deal you can get.
But aside from all that, what does (the) Labour (leadership) want? To cancel Brexit or to get that best possible deal?
Before, you were making two separate points:
1) That Labour's stated position (of negotiating a deal and then potentially campaigning against it) is inherently absurd, and 2) That we don't know what the Labour leadership wants.
My messages above have been trying to refute (1). Now you seem to have dropped that and want to move onto (2). So before we do that, I just want to check- have I won you over on (1) and if so, will you henceforth stop using it as an argument?
Haven't I "tried to have it both ways" too? I'm simultaneously advocating for one position while agreeing to implement- and spending considerable effort working out how best to implement- the other position.
Again, incomplete analogy. You are going to be the guy who decides on the spend on the software. Not the software engineer employed to implement it. Labour would be the government. And is now aiming to display its policies on everything from the NHS to nationalising Tescos. But not on Brexit, it seems.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
Depends whether or not they think that deal is better than remain. I don't see what's wrong with "this is the best we could get, we believe remaining would be better but we also believe that, given we've already had a referendum with a Leave victory, the public needs to have the final say"
Just to expand on this a bit, I work as a software engineer, and it's very common in my day-to-day work life to have a conversation with stakeholders like:
Stakeholder: We want feature X Me: Okay, but there's some complexity Y you haven't thought of there, which on balance makes X a bad idea. I think we shouldn't do it. S: I understand, but we'd like to go ahead anyway. (Later) M: So I've gone ahead and made a prototype of X. You can try the demo. Here's what I meant about Y, and here's another issue, Z, which neither of us considered before. I still think it's a bad idea, especially in light of Z, but would you like me to go ahead and implement a final version?
Now at no point has anybody ever come back to me saying "I can't possibly wrap my head around the idea that you're willing to implement X while simultaneously advocating against it. The very idea is absurd!" Nor have they responded with "How dare you ask me again, I already told you what I wanted and asking again totally undermines my agency to make decisions!" Which is why both of those arguments have always struck me as rather disingenuous in the context of Brexit.
Except, unlike you as software engineer, Labour tried to have it both ways from the start.
Haven't I "tried to have it both ways" too? I'm simultaneously advocating for one position while agreeing to implement- and spending considerable effort working out how best to implement- the other position.
There is a difference between being paid to implement something stupid, having warned your customer of the likely problems, and purporting to be the best choice lead the country while desperately refusing to commit yourself one way or the other on the major issue of the day.
What you demonstrate (as so many before) is the almost inevitability of any given analogy being obfuscatory rather than illuminating.
(And no, you would not be trying to have it both ways. You would be making quite clear what you think and advocate for.)
Sad to see s/sheet Phil go, hoping the Gauke manages to stay on somehow... interesting to compare Phil's thinking for not standing vs the reasons Anne Milton is.
I'm less confident now that Sunderland Central is near the uppermost limit of Tory expectations, mainly due to the fall back in LD vote meaning Lab are shipping less water on that front which makes them likely to hold over 40% and thereby the seat. Basically (and because ive used it before for bold claims) I have it falling if lab poll under 25 and Tories are double figures ahead or if Tories lead by 14/15% and lab are over 25 nationally. In the NE generally they ought to gain bishop Auckland, Stockton South, Darlington and Sedgefield if they want a majority and have a sniff in Hartlepool depending on how well the BXP do there. Scotland I now think will see labour wiped out, lib dems take 5 and the Tories hold 5 or 6 with the SNP taking the rest although I fancy Perth and NP might go against the head and Wishart fall to a Tory gain. Wales will see lab most Seats but not by much, and the midlands should see modest to impressive Tory gains, however I expect the south and SE to be grim for them with losses mainly to LD but possibly some surprise labour snatches/holds against the tide. Ni will be very poor for the DUP and I expect the SDLP, Alliance and UUP to all win a seat and Hermon will hold on
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
They will campaign for Remain. Because no deal is better than that. Perfectly logical. Also perfectly logical to ensure the Leave option is the least bad possible. Also perfectly logical for the EU to play ball. The deal will be Norway Plus. A slam dunk to draft.
You and others are mis-targeting your "ludicrous" comments.
There is nothing ludicrous about any of what is proposed except that it will lead to a rather silly referendum that has no "proper" Leave option and is therefore effectively fixed for Remain.
Having Starmer and Thornberry lead the negotiations when they are committed to remain is the ludicrous part of it. Why not let Labour brexiteers do the negotiation part?
I suppose that could be better optics. But the Deal would be the same. We know now what it is. It's Norway Plus. BINO.
Agree the deal would be similar. But it would be a lot easier to sell as a policy, both to remainers and leavers. Remainers get Starmer/Thornberry clearly on their side, and the leave deal has far more credibility by being negotiated by leavers.
Look at the tory deals, they are objectively very similar, the Johnson one worse for most Tory criteria, yet the leave Tories seem quite content with Johnson's deal and hated May's.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
They will campaign for Remain. Because no deal is better than that. Perfectly logical. Also perfectly logical to ensure the Leave option is the least bad possible. Also perfectly logical for the EU to play ball. The deal will be Norway Plus. A slam dunk to draft.
You and others are mis-targeting your "ludicrous" comments.
There is nothing ludicrous about any of what is proposed except that it will lead to a rather silly referendum that has no "proper" Leave option and is therefore effectively fixed for Remain.
"There is nothing ludicrous about any of what is proposed except that it will lead to a rather silly referendum that has no "proper" Leave option and is therefore effectively fixed for Remain"
So apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
I'd wondered how the "split" in the main parties over Brexit was going to come about.
Johnson must be pleased it's come by a few dozen left-leaning Tories like Hammond throwing in the towel, rather than Change UK or similar being a successful vehicle.
But he also needs to hope millions of voters who thought Hammond (or Clarke etc) was their cup of tea don't notice what's left is less to their taste..
Having Starmer and Thornberry lead the negotiations when they are committed to remain is the ludicrous part of it. Why not let Labour brexiteers do the negotiation part?
I suppose that could be better optics. But the Deal would be the same. We know now what it is. It's Norway Plus. BINO.
Agree the deal would be similar. But it would be a lot easier to sell as a policy, both to remainers and leavers. Remainers get Starmer/Thornberry clearly on their side, and the leave deal has far more credibility by being negotiated by leavers.
Look at the tory deals, they are objectively very similar, the Johnson one worse for most Tory criteria, yet the leave Tories seem quite content with Johnson's deal and hated May's.
They could just as easily started with Bozo's deal and then been happy with May's.
I'd wondered how the "split" in the main parties over Brexit was going to come about.
Johnson must be pleased it's come by a few dozen left-leaning Tories like Hammond throwing in the towel, rather than Change UK or similar being a successful vehicle.
But he also needs to hope millions of voters who thought Hammond (or Clarke etc) was their cup of tea don't notice what's left is less to their taste..
I'm less confident now that Sunderland Central is near the uppermost limit of Tory expectations, mainly due to the fall back in LD vote meaning Lab are shipping less water on that front which makes them likely to hold over 40% and thereby the seat. Basically (and because ive used it before for bold claims) I have it falling if lab poll under 25 and Tories are double figures ahead or if Tories lead by 14/15% and lab are over 25 nationally. In the NE generally they ought to gain bishop Auckland, Stockton South, Darlington and Sedgefield if they want a majority and have a sniff in Hartlepool depending on how well the BXP do there. Scotland I now think will see labour wiped out, lib dems take 5 and the Tories hold 5 or 6 with the SNP taking the rest although I fancy Perth and NP might go against the head and Wishart fall to a Tory gain. Wales will see lab most Seats but not by much, and the midlands should see modest to impressive Tory gains, however I expect the south and SE to be grim for them with losses mainly to LD but possibly some surprise labour snatches/holds against the tide. Ni will be very poor for the DUP and I expect the SDLP, Alliance and UUP to all win a seat and Hermon will hold on
If the Cons take Sedgefield then Durham NW might be in play as well. Wonder how a key Corbynista in Pidcock plays there.
I'm less confident now that Sunderland Central is near the uppermost limit of Tory expectations, mainly due to the fall back in LD vote meaning Lab are shipping less water on that front which makes them likely to hold over 40% and thereby the seat. Basically (and because ive used it before for bold claims) I have it falling if lab poll under 25 and Tories are double figures ahead or if Tories lead by 14/15% and lab are over 25 nationally. In the NE generally they ought to gain bishop Auckland, Stockton South, Darlington and Sedgefield if they want a majority and have a sniff in Hartlepool depending on how well the BXP do there. Scotland I now think will see labour wiped out, lib dems take 5 and the Tories hold 5 or 6 with the SNP taking the rest although I fancy Perth and NP might go against the head and Wishart fall to a Tory gain. Wales will see lab most Seats but not by much, and the midlands should see modest to impressive Tory gains, however I expect the south and SE to be grim for them with losses mainly to LD but possibly some surprise labour snatches/holds against the tide. Ni will be very poor for the DUP and I expect the SDLP, Alliance and UUP to all win a seat and Hermon will hold on
Afternoon all, back after some time away at some chess tourneys. Interesting read from Alistair, Norwich North is next door to me and I tipped it to go against the head in 2017, but was (just) wrong. I expect it to remain Tory this time but Norwich is not easy for the blues, Norwich north has much more of the wealthier suburbia than Clive Lewis patch which is much more Norwich central and UEA though where I am and avoids most of the uni housing areas. No sign of placards yet in Norwich south but I get a pretty good flavour of how sticky the lab vote is once they do and, possibly crucially, if the Lib Dems who held here in 2010 have any presence returning
Norwich North is not well named as over half the electors live over the border in Broadland district (although still greater Norwich)
I'm less confident now that Sunderland Central is near the uppermost limit of Tory expectations, mainly due to the fall back in LD vote meaning Lab are shipping less water on that front which makes them likely to hold over 40% and thereby the seat. Basically (and because ive used it before for bold claims) I have it falling if lab poll under 25 and Tories are double figures ahead or if Tories lead by 14/15% and lab are over 25 nationally. In the NE generally they ought to gain bishop Auckland, Stockton South, Darlington and Sedgefield if they want a majority and have a sniff in Hartlepool depending on how well the BXP do there. Scotland I now think will see labour wiped out, lib dems take 5 and the Tories hold 5 or 6 with the SNP taking the rest although I fancy Perth and NP might go against the head and Wishart fall to a Tory gain. Wales will see lab most Seats but not by much, and the midlands should see modest to impressive Tory gains, however I expect the south and SE to be grim for them with losses mainly to LD but possibly some surprise labour snatches/holds against the tide. Ni will be very poor for the DUP and I expect the SDLP, Alliance and UUP to all win a seat and Hermon will hold on
If the Cons take Sedgefield then Durham NW might be in play as well. Wonder how a key Corbynista in Pidcock plays there.
Someone on here said Sedgefield is way, way down the tories' target list. Way down.
1) That Labour's stated position (of negotiating a deal and then potentially campaigning against it) is inherently absurd, and 2) That we don't know what the Labour leadership wants.
My messages above have been trying to refute (1). Now you seem to have dropped that and want to move onto (2). So before we do that, I just want to check- have I won you over on (1) and if so, will you henceforth stop using it as an argument?
No.
1) remains inherently absurd. Labour will be negotiating for a deal that many Shadow Cabinet Ministers have said they will campaign against. That is ludicrous. In addition, what confidence do those who want to leave have in the negotiations when they are aware not only that it is likely the party institutionally will campaign against the outcome, but that those terms won't be "hard fought" and will for all the world resemble staying in?
2) remains an issue also. Neither you nor Laura Pidcock can answer whether you would support the deal if it was the best of all possible deals. There has been no leadership on this. As of this moment, we don't know whether Labour supports Remain or Leave.
You people calling Labour's Brexit policy ludicrous -
Would you find it less so if the policy were NOT to negotiate a "Labour Deal" but rather to just take the Boris or May one and put that out to Ref2 vs Remain?
IOW, is it this "negotiate a Deal and then campaign against it" that is especially bugging you?
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
They will campaign for Remain. Because no deal is better than that. Perfectly logical. Also perfectly logical to ensure the Leave option is the least bad possible. Also perfectly logical for the EU to play ball. The deal will be Norway Plus. A slam dunk to draft.
You and others are mis-targeting your "ludicrous" comments.
There is nothing ludicrous about any of what is proposed except that it will lead to a rather silly referendum that has no "proper" Leave option and is therefore effectively fixed for Remain.
By Norway plus, do you mean Norway but closer to Europe? Or Norway but more independent? I've always found the 'plus' descriptions a little unhelpful in that respect!
1) That Labour's stated position (of negotiating a deal and then potentially campaigning against it) is inherently absurd, and 2) That we don't know what the Labour leadership wants.
My messages above have been trying to refute (1). Now you seem to have dropped that and want to move onto (2). So before we do that, I just want to check- have I won you over on (1) and if so, will you henceforth stop using it as an argument?
No.
1) remains inherently absurd. Labour will be negotiating for a deal that many Shadow Cabinet Ministers have said they will campaign against. That is ludicrous. In addition, what confidence do those who want to leave have in the negotiations when they are aware not only that it is likely the party institutionally will campaign against the outcome, but that those terms won't be "hard fought" and will for all the world resemble staying in?
2) remains an issue also. Neither you nor Laura Pidcock can answer whether you would support the deal if it was the best of all possible deals. There has been no leadership on this. As of this moment, we don't know whether Labour supports Remain or Leave.
It's no more ludicrous than the position of the cabinet in 2016. If Leave wins, then assuming we have a Labour government, they will need to negotiate the future relationship so it would be a good idea to reformulate the political declaration according to their priorities in advance so people know what they're voting for.
So let's imagine that the deal that Lab negotiates contains everything they could possibly want. Will Lab then campaign for that deal and to leave?
They will campaign for Remain. Because no deal is better than that. Perfectly logical. Also perfectly logical to ensure the Leave option is the least bad possible. Also perfectly logical for the EU to play ball. The deal will be Norway Plus. A slam dunk to draft.
You and others are mis-targeting your "ludicrous" comments.
There is nothing ludicrous about any of what is proposed except that it will lead to a rather silly referendum that has no "proper" Leave option and is therefore effectively fixed for Remain.
So Labour will negotiate with all their little hearts for a deal and then campaign against it. And that, to you, is "not ludicrous". If they want to remain, which is what you say they do, then why not just say "we want to remain"?
I'm less confident now that Sunderland Central is near the uppermost limit of Tory expectations, mainly due to the fall back in LD vote meaning Lab are shipping less water on that front which makes them likely to hold over 40% and thereby the seat. Basically (and because ive used it before for bold claims) I have it falling if lab poll under 25 and Tories are double figures ahead or if Tories lead by 14/15% and lab are over 25 nationally. In the NE generally they ought to gain bishop Auckland, Stockton South, Darlington and Sedgefield if they want a majority and have a sniff in Hartlepool depending on how well the BXP do there. Scotland I now think will see labour wiped out, lib dems take 5 and the Tories hold 5 or 6 with the SNP taking the rest although I fancy Perth and NP might go against the head and Wishart fall to a Tory gain. Wales will see lab most Seats but not by much, and the midlands should see modest to impressive Tory gains, however I expect the south and SE to be grim for them with losses mainly to LD but possibly some surprise labour snatches/holds against the tide. Ni will be very poor for the DUP and I expect the SDLP, Alliance and UUP to all win a seat and Hermon will hold on
What does that give you, big picture AAMOI?
As of now, Tory majority of less than 50 seats, more than 20
By Norway plus, do you mean Norway but closer to Europe? Or Norway but more independent? I've always found the 'plus' descriptions a little unhelpful in that respect!
Sorry, yes, I was using "Plus" from the Remainer perspective. So a deal based on the Norway model plus a Customs Union.
By Norway plus, do you mean Norway but closer to Europe? Or Norway but more independent? I've always found the 'plus' descriptions a little unhelpful in that respect!
Sorry, yes, I was using "Plus" from the Remainer perspective. So a deal based on the Norway model plus a Customs Union.
By Norway plus, do you mean Norway but closer to Europe? Or Norway but more independent? I've always found the 'plus' descriptions a little unhelpful in that respect!
Sorry, yes, I was using "Plus" from the Remainer perspective. So a deal based on the Norway model plus a Customs Union.
Afternoon all, back after some time away at some chess tourneys. Interesting read from Alistair, Norwich North is next door to me and I tipped it to go against the head in 2017, but was (just) wrong. I expect it to remain Tory this time but Norwich is not easy for the blues, Norwich north has much more of the wealthier suburbia than Clive Lewis patch which is much more Norwich central and UEA though where I am and avoids most of the uni housing areas. No sign of placards yet in Norwich south but I get a pretty good flavour of how sticky the lab vote is once they do and, possibly crucially, if the Lib Dems who held here in 2010 have any presence returning
Norwich North is not well named as over half the electors live over the border in Broadland district (although still greater Norwich)
Agreed. Norwich as such is much more Clive Lewis territory although my parents are distraught to now be in the only suburban part of Lewis seat!
"There is nothing ludicrous about any of what is proposed except that it will lead to a rather silly referendum that has no "proper" Leave option and is therefore effectively fixed for Remain"
So apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Yes, well, if people would confine all of their "ludicrouses" and their "absurds" to the specific flaw in the probable resulting Referendum, that would not get me so het up.
I'm less confident now that Sunderland Central is near the uppermost limit of Tory expectations, mainly due to the fall back in LD vote meaning Lab are shipping less water on that front which makes them likely to hold over 40% and thereby the seat. Basically (and because ive used it before for bold claims) I have it falling if lab poll under 25 and Tories are double figures ahead or if Tories lead by 14/15% and lab are over 25 nationally. In the NE generally they ought to gain bishop Auckland, Stockton South, Darlington and Sedgefield if they want a majority and have a sniff in Hartlepool depending on how well the BXP do there. Scotland I now think will see labour wiped out, lib dems take 5 and the Tories hold 5 or 6 with the SNP taking the rest although I fancy Perth and NP might go against the head and Wishart fall to a Tory gain. Wales will see lab most Seats but not by much, and the midlands should see modest to impressive Tory gains, however I expect the south and SE to be grim for them with losses mainly to LD but possibly some surprise labour snatches/holds against the tide. Ni will be very poor for the DUP and I expect the SDLP, Alliance and UUP to all win a seat and Hermon will hold on
If the Cons take Sedgefield then Durham NW might be in play as well. Wonder how a key Corbynista in Pidcock plays there.
I think Sedgefield more likely than Pidcockshire but if NW Durham goes Boris will have a thumping majority
Comments
As for the London poll , YouGov five weeks before the last election had Labour only five points ahead of the Tories 41 v 36 .
The end result on the day Labour 54 Tory 33 . Not saying that will definitely happen this time but really all these obituaries being written for Labour ignore the fact that there’s 5 weeks till the election .
Labour would request the EU fax over their demands and that would be the deal.
More generally, the DUP have a major problem, facing a pincer movement all around Northern Ireland. They could easily lose Belfasts North, East and South, and South Antrim.
But, yes, your main point, I do mean exactly that. May's "Dementia Tax" was a GREAT policy. It was clever and brave and right. The fact it cost a ton of votes was truly depressing. Same thing happened with Burnham's attempt in 2010. The "Death Tax".
We get the politics that we deserve.
Labour *can* win if they can really squeeze the Lib Dems, and TBP starts polling above 15% but I think that's a long shot (but not impossible),
Anyway, next up will be Labour, when I have time. (The current plan is Labour, Lib Dem, SNP/Scotland in general, Wales, Northern Ireland). I'm open to requests.
This election feels different though.
Unlike last time where it was a case of guessing how big May's majority was going to be - which allowed voters to safely cast their votes for Corbyn - this one seems completely different in as much as the threat is very real now of a Labour led government.
My guess is we are all fighting the last war and the intervening couple of years have hardened voting intentions such that we won't see much of a late surge.
Maybe that is me expressing hope over reason though.
What is the status of UKIP this election? Rudderless and without a clue, but do we know if they are to stand candidates and if so, where/how many?
https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/election-2020/Admin Calendar-20190627.pdf
Labour's deal will already be written and agreed with copies in Corbyn and Tusk's safes.
Stakeholder: We want feature X
Me: Okay, but there's some complexity Y you haven't thought of there, which on balance makes X a bad idea. I think we shouldn't do it.
S: I understand, but we'd like to go ahead anyway.
(Later)
M: So I've gone ahead and made a prototype of X. You can try the demo. Here's what I meant about Y, and here's another issue, Z, which neither of us considered before. I still think it's a bad idea, especially in light of Z, but would you like me to go ahead and implement a final version?
Now at no point has anybody ever come back to me saying "I can't possibly wrap my head around the idea that you're willing to implement X while simultaneously advocating against it. The very idea is absurd!" Nor have they responded with "How dare you ask me again, I already told you what I wanted and asking again totally undermines my agency to make decisions!" Which is why both of those arguments have always struck me as rather disingenuous in the context of Brexit.
So the question again - if the deal is everything Lab wants, will they campaign for or against it?
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1191730060304224262
As an Essex boy I was astounded; there couldn't, I thought, be that much water in the sky.
With no leader, and no obvious named 'Election 2019' section, I'm going to take it they're not going to bother therefore.
Extinction beckons for them I think.
Ponder on that.
Then ponder on the fact that we don't, as it stands, know whether Labour is for Leave or Remain. That is as ludicrous.
You told us Labour should be leaders and not bow to public opinion if the party believed that something was the right thing to do. So what is the right thing to do with Brexit? Leave or Remain?
Labour are sitting on small majorities in 5 seats iirc. inc Wrexhamn- Clwyd South, Delyn, Vale of Clywyd and Alyn & Deeside while polling poorly in Wales as a whole. A disproportionate part of this poor performance likely to be in the north. In a tight election, 5 seats could be a lot
Interesting read from Alistair, Norwich North is next door to me and I tipped it to go against the head in 2017, but was (just) wrong. I expect it to remain Tory this time but Norwich is not easy for the blues, Norwich north has much more of the wealthier suburbia than Clive Lewis patch which is much more Norwich central and UEA though where I am and avoids most of the uni housing areas. No sign of placards yet in Norwich south but I get a pretty good flavour of how sticky the lab vote is once they do and, possibly crucially, if the Lib Dems who held here in 2010 have any presence returning
Con 1.53
Lab 2.63
LD 21.0
Brexit 34.0
Plaid 51.0
1) That Labour's stated position (of negotiating a deal and then potentially campaigning against it) is inherently absurd, and
2) That we don't know what the Labour leadership wants.
My messages above have been trying to refute (1). Now you seem to have dropped that and want to move onto (2). So before we do that, I just want to check- have I won you over on (1) and if so, will you henceforth stop using it as an argument?
In this case because their client has ordered them to.
What you demonstrate (as so many before) is the almost inevitability of any given analogy being obfuscatory rather than illuminating.
(And no, you would not be trying to have it both ways. You would be making quite clear what you think and advocate for.)
I think the former is more prudent.
In the NE generally they ought to gain bishop Auckland, Stockton South, Darlington and Sedgefield if they want a majority and have a sniff in Hartlepool depending on how well the BXP do there. Scotland I now think will see labour wiped out, lib dems take 5 and the Tories hold 5 or 6 with the SNP taking the rest although I fancy Perth and NP might go against the head and Wishart fall to a Tory gain. Wales will see lab most Seats but not by much, and the midlands should see modest to impressive Tory gains, however I expect the south and SE to be grim for them with losses mainly to LD but possibly some surprise labour snatches/holds against the tide.
Ni will be very poor for the DUP and I expect the SDLP, Alliance and UUP to all win a seat and Hermon will hold on
You and others are mis-targeting your "ludicrous" comments.
There is nothing ludicrous about any of what is proposed except that it will lead to a rather silly referendum that has no "proper" Leave option and is therefore effectively fixed for Remain.
Look at the tory deals, they are objectively very similar, the Johnson one worse for most Tory criteria, yet the leave Tories seem quite content with Johnson's deal and hated May's.
So apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Johnson must be pleased it's come by a few dozen left-leaning Tories like Hammond throwing in the towel, rather than Change UK or similar being a successful vehicle.
But he also needs to hope millions of voters who thought Hammond (or Clarke etc) was their cup of tea don't notice what's left is less to their taste..
1) remains inherently absurd. Labour will be negotiating for a deal that many Shadow Cabinet Ministers have said they will campaign against. That is ludicrous. In addition, what confidence do those who want to leave have in the negotiations when they are aware not only that it is likely the party institutionally will campaign against the outcome, but that those terms won't be "hard fought" and will for all the world resemble staying in?
2) remains an issue also. Neither you nor Laura Pidcock can answer whether you would support the deal if it was the best of all possible deals. There has been no leadership on this. As of this moment, we don't know whether Labour supports Remain or Leave.
Would you find it less so if the policy were NOT to negotiate a "Labour Deal" but rather to just take the Boris or May one and put that out to Ref2 vs Remain?
IOW, is it this "negotiate a Deal and then campaign against it" that is especially bugging you?
Anyway.