politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Wiping out the Lib Dems might have been Cameron’s greatest
Comments
-
Lovely little story for car fans
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/mechanic-makes-15000-mile-round-trip-from-london-to-mongolia---t/0 -
Well said...MattW said:
That is a rather misleading report by Martha Gill, who should know better having worked for the NS, Economist, FT and Telegraph, with a lot of red flags on it. It is ill-researched and lazy.DecrepitJohnL said:
As Southam Observer reminds us, there was a rush to register voters previously disenfranchised in another of Osborne's backfiring wheezes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-david-cameron-plan-to-screw-labour-cost-him-the-eu-referendum_uk_5790bae5e4b0e3583c789316?edition=uk
hidden within the cache of information dumped on the government website before ministers went to recess, was a clue as to what went wrong: a written statement by Gary Streeter, a spokesperson for the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which showed a full nine percentage point drop between 10th June 2014 and 1st December 2015 in the number of 18-19 year olds registered to vote.
1 - Gill hangs her claim on a 9% decline in number of 18-19 year olds on the Electoral Register between 6/2014 and 12/2015. This fails a basic context check.
The entire 18-19 cohort in the population is about 800k. So - assuming 100% registration and turnout - what impact could about 71,000 have had on a majority of iirc 1.3 million?
2 - The end date for EURef regustration was June 2016, not Dec 2015, and millions registered during that period. The Electoral Commission examines that, but Gill does not acknowledge that her data is incomplete.
See https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213377/The-December-2015-electoral-registers-in-Great-Britain-REPORT.pdf
eg Fig 3.3, whixh shows that between April-June 2016 there were 4.5m registrations, the vast majority online, most of which are by under-35s.
3 - Gill leads with an assumption that Cameron is politically manipulating the boundary-drawing process. It is robust to that beyond timing and marginal effects.
4 - It is very loose with its terms - "permanently disenfranchise" is simple bollocks. They are not being excluded from all future votes.
I'd say she read the short statement from Streeter, and went for stats to make a sticky news story without doing the background homework.
Discard this theory and perhaps don't rely on Gill in future?
Streeter's statement is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons,lords&keywords=electoral0 -
They did have the BSIE chairman Stuart Rose to use....IanB2 said:
Plus if he hadn't done it, it would have been left to Osborne.kle4 said:
There's nothing odd in Cameron not remaining neutral, from his perspective. I'm told the 75 vote was not close and that was in line with expectations. This one was predicted to be close by most. As such, sitting it out when his job was on the line, when the country was on the line, would not have seemed viable. Some think his contributions may have been counterproductive but it made total sense he would think his job and the country's future rested on this and so he had to at least try.DecrepitJohnL said:
That is one of the odd things -- and most inconsiderate to those of us who'd bet on the coalition having an agreed break-up in 2014 to allow the parties to differentiate themselves.SimonStClare said:Morning all.
Given a second chance in 2015, I doubt the Lib Dems would have opted to continue in coalition, also they were always going to be clobbered at the general election, there’s no telling how few would have remained, irrespective of Crosby’s intervention. Anyhows, that's enough with the whatifery.
Another was why Cameron's negotiations were so half-hearted. It is not that Cameron threw away his best card but that he did not seem to be asking for anything in particular, so long as he got something.
A third is why Cameron did not follow Harold Wilson in remaining neutral.
It does seem pretty clear the referendum pledge was intended to be thrown away during negotiations for a new coalition (which implies that even if Conservative private polling was as good as we were since told, no-one believed it). Cameron had not even attempted to sign up Sir Lynton Crosby before the referendum was called.
Another known known is that Cameron took too much comfort from the Scottish IndyRef -- yes, he'd w...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-david-cameron-plan-to-screw-labour-cost-him-the-eu-referendum_uk_5790bae5e4b0e3583c789316?edition=uk
When the result is not in doubt it's easy to take the noble path and sit it out. When it was set to be a no holds barred blood fest, of course he felt he had to participate.
The alternate explanation, that Cameron is so arrogant he thinks he walks on water and apparently thought stirring up internal party trouble was a great idea, doesn't seem anywhere like as plausible. Someone who was PM for 6 years and only had the referendum as he had no choice, would I think not have acted in that way unless he felt he had no choice.
He may have been wrong in that. But it makes sense.
0 -
He was quietly dropped, wasn't he!TCPoliticalBetting said:
They did have the BSIE chairman Stuart Rose to use....IanB2 said:
Plus if he hadn't done it, it would have been left to Osborne.kle4 said:
There's nothing odd in Cameron not remaining neutral, from his perspective. I'm told the 75 vote was not close and that was in line with expectations. This one was predicted to be close by most. As such, sitting it out when his job was on the line, when the country was on the line, would not have seemed viable. Some think his contributions may have been counterproductive but it made total sense he would think his job and the country's future rested on this and so he had to at least try.DecrepitJohnL said:
That is one of the odd things -- and most inconsiderate to those of us who'd bet on the coalition having an agreed break-up in 2014 to allow the parties to differentiate themselves.SimonStClare said:Morning all.
Given a second chance in 2015, I doubt the Lib Dems would have opted to continue in coalition, also they were always going to be clobbered at the general election, there’s no telling how few would have remained, irrespective of Crosby’s intervention. Anyhows, that's enough with the whatifery.
Another was why Cameron's negotiations were so half-hearted. It is not that Cameron threw away his best card but that he did not seem to be asking for anything in particular, so long as he got something.
A third is why Cameron did not follow Harold Wilson in remaining neutral.
It does seem pretty clear the referendum pledge was intended to be thrown away during negotiations for a new coalition (which implies that even if Conservative private polling was as good as we were since told, no-one believed it). Cameron had not even attempted to sign up Sir Lynton Crosby before the referendum was called.
Another known known is that Cameron took too much comfort from the Scottish IndyRef -- yes, he'd w...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-david-cameron-plan-to-screw-labour-cost-him-the-eu-referendum_uk_5790bae5e4b0e3583c789316?edition=uk
When the result is not in doubt it's easy to take the noble path and sit it out. When it was set to be a no holds barred blood fest, of course he felt he had to participate.
The alternate explanation, that Cameron is so arrogant he thinks he walks on water and apparently thought stirring up internal party trouble was a great idea, doesn't seem anywhere like as plausible. Someone who was PM for 6 years and only had the referendum as he had no choice, would I think not have acted in that way unless he felt he had no choice.
He may have been wrong in that. But it makes sense.0 -
Cameron would have been made to resign regardless, it's a fantasy to think he'd have allowed to stay on. If his lack of asset status was clear mud campaign it was too late to change course, but in fact I do recall him not pushing as hard as early on.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Wilson was not neutral in 1975. He let others campaign to avoid any anti govt vote and to avoid his need to resign if the vote was lost. Cameron would only be an asset if he was well regarded by voters but as early as mid campaign, Cameron's ratings were behind some LEAVE leaders. Osborne's ratings were in the gutter, 2% for Leadership for example. In the Sindyref they understood that they were a liability and minimised their headlining work.kle4 said:
There's nothing odd in Cameron not remaining neutral, from his perspective. I'm told the 75 vote was not close and that was in line with expectations. This one was predicted to be close by most. As such, sitting it out when his job was on the line, when the country was on the line, would not have seemed viable. Some think his contributions may have been counterproductive but it made total sense he would think his job and the country's future rested on this and so he had to at least try.DecrepitJohnL said:
That is one of the odd things -- and mostSimonStClare said:Morning all.
Given a second chance in 2015, I doubt the Lib Dems would have opted to continue in coalition, also they were always going to be clobbered at the general election, there’s no telling how few would have remained, irrespective of Crosby’s intervention. Anyhows, that's enough with the whatifery.
When the result is not in doubt it's easy to take the noble path and sit it out. When it was set to be a no holds barred blood fest, of course he felt he had to participate.
In any case, the point was not whether he was indeed an asset but if his actions made sense. Time and time again people expressed bafflement and suggested he was either crazy or arrogant for acting as he did. I said then and I say now I don't think his actions bear out either if those explanations, from his PoV it was rational, even if based on faulty assumptions, and I've never thought it helpful to try to analyse things from a starting position of assuming irrationality from the ones you attempt to analyse.
Corbyn is a case in point. Many of his actions seem inexplicable, until we understand what he thinks he is achieving, and critiquing why he's wrong about that is more useful than just assuming he's an idiot. That may also be true, but is tangential.0 -
Labour wanted to talk to the LibDems but only in the fashion of a headmaster to a naughty schoolboy and Ed Balls with cane in hand.OldKingCole said:Wasn’t it Labour who didn’t want to talk to the LibDems?
In contrast the Conservatives played their hand extremely well.
0 -
The Lib Dems didn't even need to keep their pledge. Their pledge was to abolish tuition fees, the Tories sought to triple them and the Lib Dems let that happen. Had the Lib Dems stood firm on a compromise of "abolishing fees isn't possible, but we won't raise them any further" then I think they would have easily got away with that.JackW said:
Both sides were well aware and prepared for the negotiations which is why they proceeded with such speed and ease.DecrepitJohnL said:
In the 2010 coalition negotiations, there was reported Tory surprise that the LibDem negotiators seemed unaware of measures in their own manifesto. The LibDem team should have insisted on keeping their tuition fee pledge. Clegg should also not have issued his unapologetic apology where he said -- in so many words -- that LibDem manifestos should never be trusted as they could only ever be starting points in coalition deals.JackW said:
What would you have had the LibDems do after the 2010 election?Alistair said:Lib Dems were poisoned 12 months into the coalition. The only thing g they could have done to avoid wipeout was pulling the plug early. I voted lid dem in 2010 I won't be voting for them for the next decade at best. If they claimed the benefits of 2010-15 it would be 20 years before I even think of voting for them.
The LibDems should also -- even if only for cynical reasons -- have made a greater show of talking to Labour.
The tuition fee pledge was a critical mistake, both in the making and the abandonment. However the essentials of Coalition, something the LibDems had argued for many a decade decades remained the same - stable, effective government in the national interest and the need for compromise on the respective manifestos.
It was the fact they did the exact opposite of their pledge that got such furore. Had they just taken masterly inactivity and done nothing with fees they'd have had a free pass on that.0 -
Thanks MD. I only have money in my 365 account so ive had a nibble at 11/10.Morris_Dancer said:F1: still no idea if I've missed something (the forecast said it'd be dry) but No Safety Car is available at 5/4 at Sportsbook, still:
https://www.betfair.com/sport/motor-sport
I tipped it (only evens, Ladbrokes) in my pre-race piece:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/hungary-pre-race-2016.html0 -
Not th first party to completely go against a manifesto commitment though, and most had less excuse.Philip_Thompson said:
The Lib Dems didn't even need to keep their pledge. Their pledge was to abolish tuition fees, the Tories sought to triple them and the Lib Dems let that happen. Had the Lib Dems stood firm on a compromise of "abolishing fees isn't possible, but we won't raise them any further" then I think they would have easily got away with that.JackW said:
Both sides were well aware and prepared for the negotiations which is why they proceeded with such speed and ease.DecrepitJohnL said:
In the 2010 coalition negotiations, there was reported Tory surprise that the LibDem negotiators seemed unaware of measures in their own manifesto. The LibDem team should have insisted on keeping their tuition fee pledge. Clegg should also not have issued his unapologetic apology where he said -- in so many words -- that LibDem manifestos should never be trusted as they could only ever be starting points in coalition deals.JackW said:
What would you have had the LibDems do after the 2010 election?Alistair said:Lib Dems were poisoned 12 months into the coalition. The only thing g they could have done to avoid wipeout was pulling the plug early. I voted lid dem in 2010 I won't be voting for them for the next decade at best. If they claimed the benefits of 2010-15 it would be 20 years before I even think of voting for them.
The LibDems should also -- even if only for cynical reasons -- have made a greater show of talking to Labour.
The tuition fee pledge was a critical mistake, both in the making and the abandonment. However the essentials of Coalition, something the LibDems had argued for many a decade decades remained the same - stable, effective government in the national interest and the need for compromise on the respective manifestos.
It was the fact they did the exact opposite of their pledge that got such furore. Had they just taken masterly inactivity and done nothing with fees they'd have had a free pass on that.
0 -
Mr. 64, there can always be a breakdown that brings one out, but I'm still perplexed by the odds.
Here's the BBC weather forecast (when I want a more accurate one I tend to use Wunderground):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3054643
Anyway, I'll be irked if it doesn't come off now.0 -
Probably so.Philip_Thompson said:The Lib Dems didn't even need to keep their pledge. Their pledge was to abolish tuition fees, the Tories sought to triple them and the Lib Dems let that happen. Had the Lib Dems stood firm on a compromise of "abolishing fees isn't possible, but we won't raise them any further" then I think they would have easily got away with that.
It was the fact they did the exact opposite of their pledge that got such furore. Had they just taken masterly inactivity and done nothing with fees they'd have had a free pass on that.
Strategically the worst mistake was the failure of the LibDems to explore the Cameron/Osborne offer of a "2015 Coupon Election".
A myriad of specultion to be had, although it's safe to say that Peter Bone would have self combusted at the prospect.
0 -
FoM is a fundamental right.... Unless you're a brit wanting to go to france. This is just brexit revenge dressed up as a security need.SquareRoot said:
That's a very complacent attitudePlatoSaid said:
It's bizarre isn't it? I suppose someone in the French border ministry is getting a kick out of it. We haven't had a major incident here in a decade, and no British residents involved in European attacks at allSandpit said:Morning. I see the French are continuing their campaign to encourage stay-at-home tourism in Britain.
If they want a hint, they're looking at the wrong border for the source of their problem.0 -
Mr. W, why didn't the Lib Dems go for that? Afraid of the National Liberal absorption repeating itself?0
-
No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.MattW said:
Leaving aside the alleged impact of December 2015 as a basis for boundary changes (which is open to question), the whole piece by Martha Gill who should know better having worked for the NS, Economist, FT and Telegraph, is misleading, with a lot of red flags on it. It is ill-researched and lazy.DecrepitJohnL said:
... there was a rush to register voters previously disenfranchised ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-david-cameron-plan-to-screw-labour-cost-him-the-eu-referendum_uk_5790bae5e4b0e3583c789316?edition=uk
hidden within the cache of information dumped on the government website before ministers went to recess, was a clue as to what went wrong: a written statement by Gary Streeter, a spokesperson for the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which showed a full nine percentage point drop between 10th June 2014 and 1st December 2015 in the number of 18-19 year olds registered to vote.
1 - Gill hangs her claim on a 9% decline in number of 18-19 year olds on the Electoral Register between 6/2014 and 12/2015. This fails a basic context check.
The entire 18-19 cohort in the population is about 800k. So - assuming 100% registration and turnout - what impact could about 71,000 have had on a majority of iirc 1.3 million?
2 - The end date for EURef regustration was June 2016, not Dec 2015, and millions registered during that period. The Electoral Commission examines that, but Gill does not acknowledge that her data is incomplete.
See https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213377/The-December-2015-electoral-registers-in-Great-Britain-REPORT.pdf
eg Fig 3.3, whixh shows that between April-June 2016 there were 4.5m registrations, the vast majority online, most of which are by under-35s.
3 - Gill leads with an assumption that Cameron is politically manipulating the boundary-drawing process. It is robust to that beyond timing and marginal effects.
4 - It is very loose with its terms - "permanently disenfranchise" is simple bollocks. They are not being excluded from all future votes.
I'd say she read the short statement from Streeter, and went for stats to make a sticky news story without doing the background homework.
Discard this theory and perhaps don't rely on Gill in future?
Streeter's statement is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons,lords&keywords=electoral
0 -
Desperate stuff by Labour MP's. We have this one saying somone went in their office, another saying Jeremy threatened to phone his Dad and teh lies last week about a brick through Eagle's office window when in fact it was actually in a stairwell in a building shared by six organisations and opposite side to her office.Innocent_Abroad said:
So JC's team is accusing a black female MP of telling lies? Very socialist. Or have I missed something?PlatoSaid said:
Corbyn's office is saying Seema had resigned so it wasn't her office anymore and they'd every right to enter.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, saw a bit of Sky last night. Isn't it due to Jezbollah's underlings entering an MP's office without her knowledge or permission?
No wonder Jeremy can run rings round these losers.0 -
The first point is the killer though. There is no way it could overturn a 1.3million majority.DecrepitJohnL said:
No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.0 -
I have some sympathy with France over the border issue. There were links between those involved in the Hebdo attack and some of our radical clerics here. So given what they have suffered it is not that unreasonable for them to try and prevent easy passage of such radicals to and from France.
There have been far too many links between our Islamists and those attacking other countries for us to be complacent. Some countries might consider us to be a haven for Islamists. Wasn't it France which coined the moniker "Londonistan" at the time of the Algerian terrorist attacks in the 1980's?
Whether queues on the A20 are the right way to go about it is another matter, of course.0 -
I'm just imagining the reaction on here if a local education authority run school was depending thousands on management consultants and Jaguars and responded with a "just following the rules" response.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/23/education-academies-funding-expenses0 -
So you want brexit and FOM.. Sorry ain't gonna happen without major cost implications.. Brexiters won, this is the inevitable outcome.paulyork64 said:
FoM is a fundamental right.... Unless you're a brit wanting to go to france. This is just brexit revenge dressed up as a security need.SquareRoot said:
That's a very complacent attitudePlatoSaid said:
It's bizarre isn't it? I suppose someone in the French border ministry is getting a kick out of it. We haven't had a major incident here in a decade, and no British residents involved in European attacks at allSandpit said:Morning. I see the French are continuing their campaign to encourage stay-at-home tourism in Britain.
If they want a hint, they're looking at the wrong border for the source of their problem.0 -
Which they're going about in entirely the wrong way. Unless by revenge, they mean to hurt their own economy at the expense of encouraging Brits to stay at home this summer?paulyork64 said:
FoM is a fundamental right.... Unless you're a brit wanting to go to france. This is just brexit revenge dressed up as a security need.SquareRoot said:
That's a very complacent attitudePlatoSaid said:
It's bizarre isn't it? I suppose someone in the French border ministry is getting a kick out of it. We haven't had a major incident here in a decade, and no British residents involved in European attacks at allSandpit said:Morning. I see the French are continuing their campaign to encourage stay-at-home tourism in Britain.
If they want a hint, they're looking at the wrong border for the source of their problem.
Mr @MaxPB reckoned the other day that the tourism effects of the weakened pound (more foreign visitors to UK and fewer Brits travelling abroad for holidays this summer) could be worth some 0.3-0.4% of GDP. That could be the difference between growth and recession in Q3.0 -
We were never in Schengen, so there was always security at our borders. This is obviously just a reaction to recent events, and will fade in time.SquareRoot said:
So you want brexit and FOM.. Sorry ain't gonna happen without major cost implications.. Brexiters won, this is the inevitable outcome.paulyork64 said:
FoM is a fundamental right.... Unless you're a brit wanting to go to france. This is just brexit revenge dressed up as a security need.SquareRoot said:
That's a very complacent attitudePlatoSaid said:
It's bizarre isn't it? I suppose someone in the French border ministry is getting a kick out of it. We haven't had a major incident here in a decade, and no British residents involved in European attacks at allSandpit said:Morning. I see the French are continuing their campaign to encourage stay-at-home tourism in Britain.
If they want a hint, they're looking at the wrong border for the source of their problem.0 -
But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.JackW said:
Both sides were well aware and prepared for the negotiations which is why they proceeded with such speed and ease.DecrepitJohnL said:
In the 2010 coalition negotiations, there was reported Tory surprise that the LibDem negotiators seemed unaware of measures in their own manifesto. The LibDem team should have insisted on keeping their tuition fee pledge. Clegg should also not have issued his unapologetic apology where he said -- in so many words -- that LibDem manifestos should never be trusted as they could only ever be starting points in coalition deals.JackW said:
What would you have had the LibDems do after the 2010 election?Alistair said:Lib Dems were poisoned 12 months into the coalition. The only thing g they could have done to avoid wipeout was pulling the plug early. I voted lid dem in 2010 I won't be voting for them for the next decade at best. If they claimed the benefits of 2010-15 it would be 20 years before I even think of voting for them.
The LibDems should also -- even if only for cynical reasons -- have made a greater show of talking to Labour.
The tuition fee pledge was a critical mistake, both in the making and the abandonment. However the essentials of Coalition, something the LibDems had argued for many a decade decades remained the same - stable, effective government in the national interest and the need for compromise on the respective manifestos.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.0 -
That reaction would depend on the colour of the LEA, methinks.Alistair said:I'm just imagining the reaction on here if a local education authority run school was depending thousands on management consultants and Jaguars and responded with a "just following the rules" response.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/23/education-academies-funding-expenses
0 -
It is entirely unsurprising that young voter registration dropped, and in itself it doesn't provide any evidence of individuals not being registered that otherwise might have been. Individual registration ended automatic enrolment for university campus students, and basically meant that many people formerly registered twice were now registered once. Since you can 1) only vote once and 2) the referendum was out of term time it is dubious to link a reduction in registration with a decline in voter eligibility (even ignoring the six month period post December 2015).0
-
@MichaelPDeacon: If you were in any doubt about the current state of the Labour party, read this passage. https://t.co/BJB2ITXY7k https://t.co/dOA5ccqBle0
-
F1: Ericsson's changed his chassis, and starts from the pit lane.0
-
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
0 -
To a limited extent. However the prime reason was the belief that the LibDems would eventually ride out the storm, recover as the election loomed and retain approx 40 seats.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, why didn't the Lib Dems go for that? Afraid of the National Liberal absorption repeating itself?
Ooooppps.0 -
kle4 said:
It is hard for me to see how it can be sustained st its current level for too much longer, there isn't that much content in the app, but it's been a very successful one, more even than the Pokemon craze when I was at school.PlatoSaid said:How long will this craze last?!
Restaurants and pubs pay to become homes for Pokemon Go monsters to attract gaming customers https://t.co/8VkNNOLoWo https://t.co/Loog6e8QtF
I do like the chart online showing Nintendo, specifically with Pokemon, trying to encourage social interaction, with trading Pokemon in games to battling them in public, culminating in Pokemon go and the message 'go outside for f!?!'s sake'!
0 -
I think when people express amazement at how 'well' Labour are doing in the polls at the moment (as in "how are they still at 30%?") they are not factoring quite how disastrous a General Election campaign with Corbyn as leader is likely to be. I reckon he could lose 5-10% in the campaign alone.Scott_P said:@MichaelPDeacon: If you were in any doubt about the current state of the Labour party, read this passage. https://t.co/BJB2ITXY7k https://t.co/dOA5ccqBle
I imagine that he will largely disdain national campaigning (because it allows the MSM to 'distort' his message and will concentrate almost entirely on local events "meeting the people" where he will draw large crowds of adoring supporters and persuade absolutely no-body. And think it's all going so well. Denis Healey (or was it Hattersley?) wrote a great piece last year about the 1983 election describing exactly that phenomenom.0 -
@sundersays: Pro-Brexit MPs not unified on Brexit. 25 MPs organise to block single market; while Boris promises City passporting https://t.co/RolmAJ9MEd0
-
Mr. W, a strategy that developed not necessarily to the Lib Dems' advantage.0
-
Listening to Marr about Paddy Ashdown's new movement:
"herbivores' Momentum".
Uncomfortably close to reality I suspect.0 -
Fascinating nuggets in here. Report from Corbyn's Salford rally yesterday.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jeremy-corbyn-launches-labour-leadership-11656041#ICID=sharebar_twitter
"But such a bizarre proclamation shows Corbyn is no longer just the man who shuffles away awkwardly from journalists. He knows exactly how to handle his faithful and the Thanet point will land exactly as intended, fuelling the current narrative among fans. 'Mainstream' journalists will mock. His audience will point to the MSM conspiracy.
Downwards it goes, unless you are a Tory. Go back to your constituencies, Labour MPs, and prepare for deselection.
Criticism only strengthens Corbyn's resolve, as the trigger-happy PLP have found out."0 -
Mr. W, is Ashdown's idea some sort of 'progressive alliance', by any chance?0
-
Incorrect.Alistair said:But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
One of the reasons the Coalition lasted the full term, and didn't fall within months as many predicted, was that both sides largely got what they wanted within the talks, that were hard headed but amicable and focused on policy and not competing personalities.
0 -
Of course they're not unified on what type of Brexit is wanted, who ever thought they were?Scott_P said:@sundersays: Pro-Brexit MPs not unified on Brexit. 25 MPs organise to block single market; while Boris promises City passporting https://t.co/RolmAJ9MEd
I hope May proves better at taking on the hardliners than Cameron. But I don't even know how inclined she is to do so.0 -
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.JackW said:
Incorrect.Alistair said:But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
One of the reasons the Coalition lasted the full term, and didn't fall within months as many predicted, was that both sides largely got what they wanted within the talks, that were hard headed but amicable and focused on policy and not competing personalities.0 -
So Corbyn gets overly excited about the implications of a parish council victory? He's either deeply cynical in getting his followers hyped over things that don't matter, or he's secretly PBer.Scott_P said:@MichaelPDeacon: If you were in any doubt about the current state of the Labour party, read this passage. https://t.co/BJB2ITXY7k https://t.co/dOA5ccqBle
0 -
The claim is:DecrepitJohnL said:
No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.MattW said:
Leaving aside the alleged impact of December 2015 as a basis for boundary changes (which is open to question), the whole piece by Martha Gill who should know better having worked for the NS, Economist, FT and Telegraph, is misleading, with a lot of red flags on it. It is ill-researched and lazy.DecrepitJohnL said:
... there was a rush to register voters previously disenfranchised ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-david-cameron-plan-to-screw-labour-cost-him-the-eu-referendum_uk_5790bae5e4b0e3583c789316?edition=uk
1 - Gill hangs her claim on a 9% decline in number of 18-19 year olds on the Electoral Register between 6/2014 and 12/2015. This fails a basic context check.
The entire 18-19 cohort in the population is about 800k. So - assuming 100% registration and turnout - what impact could about 71,000 have had on a majority of iirc 1.3 million?
2 - The end date for EURef regustration was June 2016, not Dec 2015, and millions registered during that period. The Electoral Commission examines that, but Gill does not acknowledge that her data is incomplete.
See https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213377/The-December-2015-electoral-registers-in-Great-Britain-REPORT.pdf
eg Fig 3.3, whixh shows that between April-June 2016 there were 4.5m registrations, the vast majority online, most of which are by under-35s.
3 - Gill leads with an assumption that Cameron is politically manipulating the boundary-drawing process. It is robust to that beyond timing and marginal effects.
4 - It is very loose with its terms - "permanently disenfranchise" is simple bollocks. They are not being excluded from all future votes.
I'd say she read the short statement from Streeter, and went for stats to make a sticky news story without doing the background homework.
Discard this theory and perhaps don't rely on Gill in future?
Streeter's statement is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons,lords&keywords=electoral
"How David Cameron’s Plan To Screw Labour Cost Him The EU Referendum"
But Gill presents no evidence that that is the case, or that younger cohorts have been lost from the register, or that this had any effect on the referendum.
The relevant data she chooses not to present supports the argument to the contrary.
0 -
A masterpiece of PB understatement.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, a strategy that developed not necessarily to the Lib Dems' advantage.
0 -
8 million people missing from the registers in December 2015; 3 million registered by the referendum. Of course, we cannot know how the other 5 million would have voted -- it is certainly arguable they'd all have abstained.Philip_Thompson said:
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
Were they brought forward against Electoral Commission advice to further disadvantage Labour? Yes.
Were they crucial in Brexit and Cameron and Osborne's loss of office? 5 million missing voters against a margin of 1.3 million? Maybe; maybe not.0 -
For our France fans
Tom Holland
Magnificently, the name of the British ambassador in Munich during Napoleon's attempted invasion of Britain was Francis Drake.0 -
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?DecrepitJohnL said:
8 million people missing from the registers in December 2015; 3 million registered by the referendum. Of course, we cannot know how the other 5 million would have voted -- it is certainly arguable they'd all have abstained.Philip_Thompson said:
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
Were they brought forward against Electoral Commission advice to further disadvantage Labour? Yes.
Were they crucial in Brexit and Cameron and Osborne's loss of office? 5 million missing voters against a margin of 1.3 million? Maybe; maybe not.0 -
It's essentially a repeat of the well worn Jo Grimond doctrine.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, is Ashdown's idea some sort of 'progressive alliance', by any chance?
0 -
Mr. W, one aims to please.
Edited extra bit: Mr. W, I am unfamiliar with the Jo Grimond doctrine.0 -
Isn't that just accepting the LDs really are just LabourLite? I know being open to both sides - and not just saying it but meaning it - did not work out, but admitting they are only willing to work in a 'progressive alliance', which is code for a leftist alliance, seems like it might go too far.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, is Ashdown's idea some sort of 'progressive alliance', by any chance?
0 -
Got it.RobD said:
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?DecrepitJohnL said:
8 million people missing from the registers in December 2015; 3 million registered by the referendum. Of course, we cannot know how the other 5 million would have voted -- it is certainly arguable they'd all have abstained.Philip_Thompson said:
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
Were they brought forward against Electoral Commission advice to further disadvantage Labour? Yes.
Were they crucial in Brexit and Cameron and Osborne's loss of office? 5 million missing voters against a margin of 1.3 million? Maybe; maybe not.
Although it is caveated:
"As emphasised in our previous reports, these figures do not mean that the registers should contain 7.8-8.3 million more entries in total. Those not correctly registered may still be included on the register but for instance at a previous address (inaccurate entry)"
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213377/The-December-2015-electoral-registers-in-Great-Britain-REPORT.pdf0 -
Morris Dancer. I've no idea what the correct odds for a Safety Car should be or whether you've missed something but "No Safety Car" is Evens or better across all bookies with the majority odds against. What odds in percentage terms do you rate "No Safety Car"?paulyork64 said:
Thanks MD. I only have money in my 365 account so ive had a nibble at 11/10.Morris_Dancer said:F1: still no idea if I've missed something (the forecast said it'd be dry) but No Safety Car is available at 5/4 at Sportsbook, still:
https://www.betfair.com/sport/motor-sport
I tipped it (only evens, Ladbrokes) in my pre-race piece:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/hungary-pre-race-2016.html0 -
The fact that this has been so successful even with the apps flaws, mean that when a game comes along that takes the premise to the next level, will go huge.kle4 said:
It is hard for me to see how it can be sustained st its current level for too much longer, there isn't that much content in the app, but it's been a very successful one, more even than the Pokemon craze when I was at school.PlatoSaid said:How long will this craze last?!
Restaurants and pubs pay to become homes for Pokemon Go monsters to attract gaming customers https://t.co/8VkNNOLoWo https://t.co/Loog6e8QtF
I do like the chart online showing Nintendo, specifically with Pokemon, trying to encourage social interaction, with trading Pokemon in games to battling them in public, culminating in Pokemon go and the message 'go outside for f!?!'s sake'!
Imagine an app enabled global hide and seek game for instance. Some players designated as prey and others as hunters, some safe haven areas, etc0 -
Did you expect LibDem cabinet ministers to cycle to Whitehall and ride tandem with their security detail or perhaps float into central London on a wave of public adulation?Alistair said:
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.JackW said:
Incorrect.Alistair said:But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
One of the reasons the Coalition lasted the full term, and didn't fall within months as many predicted, was that both sides largely got what they wanted within the talks, that were hard headed but amicable and focused on policy and not competing personalities.0 -
From the report linked below:DecrepitJohnL said:
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
"This means that during the transition to IER - 10 June 2014 to 1 December 2015 – the overall accuracy of the registers increased (by an estimated four percentage points). Completeness appears to have remained largely stable with a decline of less than 1 percentage point which is not statistically significant."
Where completeness is defined as "every person who is entitled to have an entry on an electoral register is registered"0 -
Richard Nabavi always claimed Cameron would've held the referendum even if he'd formed a coalition with the LIb-Dems (would have part of any coalition deal) but who knows.
Clearly the EU had lost democratic legitimacy for half the population which is unsustainable. A referendum would have had to happen sooner or later.
0 -
I believe the implication is the only thing they wanted from the negotiations was the Cabinet positions, and to hell with getting anything else. Frankly, while an amusing jibe, that strikes me as unrealistic - even if that was their prime driving motivation, they needed to be able to sell the deal. Now, they weren't able to, but they did try to get things to try.JackW said:
Did you expect LibDem cabinet ministers to cycle to Whitehall and ride tandem with their security detail or perhaps float into central London on a wave of public adulation?Alistair said:
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.JackW said:
Incorrect.Alistair said:But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
One of the reasons the Coalition lasted the full term, and didn't fall within months as many predicted, was that both sides largely got what they wanted within the talks, that were hard headed but amicable and focused on policy and not competing personalities.0 -
Mr. Freggles, I agree, there are significant future possibilities that may make Pokemon Go look small and unpopular by comparison.
I just hope mainstream games don't develop mobile side-streams ('finding' bonuses in the real world, for example).
Mr. StJohn, if it's dry, 70-80%, perhaps more.
Hungary is the least likely circuit to see one. Wide track, lots of run off.
The Virtual Safety Car also makes one less likely. It's not impossible, but the odds seem a bit off-kilter to me.
Mr. kle4, I agree (though I'm hardly a Lib Dem target voter).
A more pressing problem may be that allying with Labour right now is like a rat jumping onto a sinking ship.0 -
In the link to Streeter in Hansard.RobD said:
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?DecrepitJohnL said:
8 million people missing from the registers in December 2015; 3 million registered by the referendum. Of course, we cannot know how the other 5 million would have voted -- it is certainly arguable they'd all have abstained.Philip_Thompson said:
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
Were they brought forward against Electoral Commission advice to further disadvantage Labour? Yes.
Were they crucial in Brexit and Cameron and Osborne's loss of office? 5 million missing voters against a margin of 1.3 million? Maybe; maybe not.
The Commission estimates that, in December 2015, between 7.6 and 8.3 million eligible people were not correctly registered to vote.
and further down:
At the EU referendum, the Commission announced that there were 46,500,001 entries on the registers compared to the 43,478,635 that were on the equivalent 1 December 2015 registers
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-07-14/HCWS91/
I'd rounded the EC figures to 8 million in December 2015 of whom 3 million registered by the referendum.0 -
That sounds dangerous.Freggles said:
The fact that this has been so successful even with the apps flaws, mean that when a game comes along that takes the premise to the next level, will go huge.kle4 said:
It is hard for me to see how it can be sustained st its current level for too much longer, there isn't that much content in the app, but it's been a very successful one, more even than the Pokemon craze when I was at school.PlatoSaid said:How long will this craze last?!
Restaurants and pubs pay to become homes for Pokemon Go monsters to attract gaming customers https://t.co/8VkNNOLoWo https://t.co/Loog6e8QtF
I do like the chart online showing Nintendo, specifically with Pokemon, trying to encourage social interaction, with trading Pokemon in games to battling them in public, culminating in Pokemon go and the message 'go outside for f!?!'s sake'!
Imagine an app enabled global hide and seek game for instance. Some players designated as prey and others as hunters, some safe haven areas, etc
How will Matron safeguard them all?
Will Durgin' Sturgeon activate the child-supervisors?0 -
That's one reason I dismiss criticism of Cameron for calling the referendum in the first place, as we've seen from Europe. It was about party management, but as the result showed, clearly at best support for the EU was on a knife edge, and at some point a confrontation on that point was inevitable.GIN1138 said:Richard Nabavi always claimed Cameron would've held the referendum even if he'd formed a coalition with the LIb-Dems (would have part of any coalition deal) but who knows.
Clearly the EU had lost democratic legitimacy for half the population which is unsustainable. A referendum would have had to happen sooner or later.
Good day all.0 -
McDonnell on Marr - popcorn0
-
I was thinking of Blue Liberals in the West Country, although it is possible I overestimate how significant they will be.Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. kle4, I agree (though I'm hardly a Lib Dem target voter).
0 -
See my additional replies below. It seems as though the majority of those entries were inaccurate, given that the accuracy of the register increased by 4%, whereas the completeness went down only by 1%.DecrepitJohnL said:
In the link to Streeter in Hansard.RobD said:
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?DecrepitJohnL said:
8 million people missing from the registers in December 2015; 3 million registered by the referendum. Of course, we cannot know how the other 5 million would have voted -- it is certainly arguable they'd all have abstained.Philip_Thompson said:
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
Were they brought forward against Electoral Commission advice to further disadvantage Labour? Yes.
Were they crucial in Brexit and Cameron and Osborne's loss of office? 5 million missing voters against a margin of 1.3 million? Maybe; maybe not.
The Commission estimates that, in December 2015, between 7.6 and 8.3 million eligible people were not correctly registered to vote.
and further down:
At the EU referendum, the Commission announced that there were 46,500,001 entries on the registers compared to the 43,478,635 that were on the equivalent 1 December 2015 registers
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-07-14/HCWS91/
I'd rounded the EC figures to 8 million in December 2015 of whom 3 million registered by the referendum.0 -
Judging by TSEs article today he is seriously considering joining the Lib Dems?0
-
It could also mean that there were a large numbers of entries of people on the old register who shouldn't have been (in the sense of having moved subsequently, gone back to their home country, died ete etcRobD said:
Got it.RobD said:
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?DecrepitJohnL said:
8 million people missing from the registers in December 2015; 3 million registered by the referendum. Of course, we cannot know how the other 5 million would have voted -- it is certainly arguable they'd all have abstained.Philip_Thompson said:
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
Were they brought forward against Electoral Commission advice to further disadvantage Labour? Yes.
Were they crucial in Brexit and Cameron and Osborne's loss of office? 5 million missing voters against a margin of 1.3 million? Maybe; maybe not.
Although it is caveated:
"As emphasised in our previous reports, these figures do not mean that the registers should contain 7.8-8.3 million more entries in total. Those not correctly registered may still be included on the register but for instance at a previous address (inaccurate entry)"
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213377/The-December-2015-electoral-registers-in-Great-Britain-REPORT.pdf0 -
Essentially it's a realignment of the left based on social democrat and liberal principles with a heavy emphasis on the individual over the state. Grimond wrote a number of books and pamphlets on the subject in the 1960's.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, one aims to please.
Edited extra bit: Mr. W, I am unfamiliar with the Jo Grimond doctrine.0 -
Off-topic: I've just spent my three quid on Margaret Thatcher's Long Walk to Finchley from the BBC's store. No spoilers please.0
-
Yeah, mainly inaccurate entries rather than anything else, which is reflected in their finding that the completeness of the register only dropped by 1%, which they call statistically insignificant. The accuracy of the register increased by 4%.alex. said:
It could also mean that there were a large numbers of entries of people on the old register who shouldn't have been (in the sense of having moved subsequently, gone back to their home country, died ete etcRobD said:
Got it.RobD said:
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?DecrepitJohnL said:
8 million people missing from the registers in December 2015; 3 million registered by the referendum. Of course, we cannot know how the other 5 million would have voted -- it is certainly arguable they'd all have abstained.Philip_Thompson said:
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.DecrepitJohnL said:No, the claims are that the referendum was lost as a side-effect of losing younger cohorts (and private renters) from the register, and that this was done by December 2015 to disadvantage Labour as boundaries are redrawn. That the government subsequently held a rushed registration drive before the referendum is evidence in favour of the second point, not against.
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
Were they brought forward against Electoral Commission advice to further disadvantage Labour? Yes.
Were they crucial in Brexit and Cameron and Osborne's loss of office? 5 million missing voters against a margin of 1.3 million? Maybe; maybe not.
Although it is caveated:
"As emphasised in our previous reports, these figures do not mean that the registers should contain 7.8-8.3 million more entries in total. Those not correctly registered may still be included on the register but for instance at a previous address (inaccurate entry)"
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/213377/The-December-2015-electoral-registers-in-Great-Britain-REPORT.pdf0 -
I told you so, I told you so:
"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."[not to mention still pay a goodly sum of our EU contributions into their coffers for single market access....]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.
I suspect the French can be sorted by giving them transitional access to UK fishing waters for the 7 years in return (although they will have to play by our conservation rules with an end to throwback I hope)0 -
Sir Lynton, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.0
-
Anyone here being still bugged by windows 10 spam. I've got a windows box in the corner now with a hazard warning.
Note to Microsoft. Windows 7 works, windows 10 might not. I'm not taking the risk. Go away.
And next time I might buy a chromebook powered pc.0 -
If Cameron had got that in February (by telling the EU he was giving them one month to come to their senses of he'd be campaigning for LEAVE) we would probably never have Brexited.Paul_Bedfordshire said:I told you so, I told you so:
"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.0 -
A very simple principle for a political party to understand at national level is that you achieve very little out of government - Something the LibDems knew only too well but that the present shower in charge of the Labour party have chosen to ignore.kle4 said:I believe the implication is the only thing they wanted from the negotiations was the Cabinet positions, and to hell with getting anything else. Frankly, while an amusing jibe, that strikes me as unrealistic - even if that was their prime driving motivation, they needed to be able to sell the deal. Now, they weren't able to, but they did try to get things to try.
0 -
Yes indeed - full screen pop up for the first time todayPaul_Bedfordshire said:Anyone here being still bugged by windows 10 spam.
0 -
Do you see this is the Tories and their chums ripping off the taxpaayer, Mr Alistair?Alistair said:I'm just imagining the reaction on here if a local education authority run school was depending thousands on management consultants and Jaguars and responded with a "just following the rules" response.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/23/education-academies-funding-expenses0 -
That was a really weird Frank Underwood breaks 4th wall moment there from McDonnell.
Instant classic TV0 -
Many, many Lib Dem voters thought they were voting for a party that would prioritise voting reform as a key component on any deal.kle4 said:
I believe the implication is the only thing they wanted from the negotiations was the Cabinet positions, and to hell with getting anything else. Frankly, while an amusing jibe, that strikes me as unrealistic - even if that was their prime driving motivation, they needed to be able to sell the deal. Now, they weren't able to, but they did try to get things to try.JackW said:
Did you expect LibDem cabinet ministers to cycle to Whitehall and ride tandem with their security detail or perhaps float into central London on a wave of public adulation?Alistair said:
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.JackW said:
Incorrect.Alistair said:But the Lib Dems were crap at the negotiations. They gave up everythig and got nothing.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
One of the reasons the Coalition lasted the full term, and didn't fall within months as many predicted, was that both sides largely got what they wanted within the talks, that were hard headed but amicable and focused on policy and not competing personalities.
Not a referendum on a suggestion for a miserable little compromise. (Caveat, I actually like AV).0 -
I thought virtually everything here is off topic and OT signified something that was actually on topic here?DecrepitJohnL said:Off-topic: I've just spent my three quid on Margaret Thatcher's Long Walk to Finchley from the BBC's store. No spoilers please.
0 -
You couldve joined the labour party for that.DecrepitJohnL said:Off-topic: I've just spent my three quid on Margaret Thatcher's Long Walk to Finchley from the BBC's store. No spoilers please.
0 -
Yes -- it is Microsoft's last-minute drive to the deadline on Friday. Some say you should upgrade and immediately downgrade but it seems too much hassle. For myself, I've upgraded my spare from Windows 8 but am keeping Windows 7 on my main machine. Microsoft's new licensing model (where you effectively lease rather than own the OS) and intrusive data-gathering are unwelcome developments.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Anyone here being still bugged by windows 10 spam. I've got a windows box in the corner now with a hazard warning.
Note to Microsoft. Windows 7 works, windows 10 might not. I'm not taking the risk. Go away.
And next time I might buy a chromebook powered pc.0 -
For my part, the EU was always a decent idea in theory but in reality its execution was unpalatable, and the fundamental truth was it was incapable of change, incapable of sufficient flexibility, to make it more palatable, because the attitude of the EU bureaucrats and the hard core of EU leaders, did not really believe it needed to be flexible, they did not believe there needed to be any change. Whatever their occasional pronouncements on the subject, their actions showed they did not think it needed change, so it would not.GIN1138 said:
If Cameron had got that in February (by telling the EU he was giving them one month to come to their senses of he'd be campaigning for LEAVE) we would probably never have Brexited.Paul_Bedfordshire said:I to
It is in some ways a shame that it might be able to become something that would have been more palatable to UK voters, only because the UK has left (or rather has indicated it is leaving - a technical point since on both sides politically it cannot be prevented, but technically we're still in).0 -
@michaelsavage: McDonnell says he and Corbyn would resign if they lose a general election. First time I've heard that confirmed.0
-
The coalition looks one of the best govts we've had. Would there even have been a referendum though if it had continued?0
-
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?Paul_Bedfordshire said:I told you so, I told you so:
"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."[not to mention still pay a goodly sum of our EU contributions into their coffers for single market access....]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.
I suspect the French can be sorted by giving them transitional access to UK fishing waters for the 7 years in return (although they will have to play by our conservation rules with an end to throwback I hope)0 -
I see it as exactly what I predicted would happen, ballooning management costs (despite it being the more 'efficient' private sector running things) and cosy unquestioned supply deals between nominally not for profit Academies and for profit suppliers run by the same management group.PClipp said:
Do you see this is the Tories and their chums ripping off the taxpaayer, Mr Alistair?Alistair said:I'm just imagining the reaction on here if a local education authority run school was depending thousands on management consultants and Jaguars and responded with a "just following the rules" response.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/23/education-academies-funding-expenses0 -
If their leaders can negotiate a similar arrangementsurbiton said:
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?Paul_Bedfordshire said:I told you so, I told you so:
"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."[not to mention still pay a goodly sum of our EU contributions into their coffers for single market access....]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.
I suspect the French can be sorted by giving them transitional access to UK fishing waters for the 7 years in return (although they will have to play by our conservation rules with an end to throwback I hope) 0 -
Not getting it. I ungraded to Windows 10 last year. Windows 10 is very good but that's compared to my previous OS which was windows 8 and pretty awful.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Anyone here being still bugged by windows 10 spam. I've got a windows box in the corner now with a hazard warning.
I managed to miss the highly regarded Windows 7.
0 -
I got the impression that Blair and Cameron were very weak negotiators. They were far to gentlemany when what is needed in negotiations with such people is a whiff of prepared to resort to east end thuggery if they don't get their own way (even if inflicts as much self harm as harm on the opposition) about them.GIN1138 said:
If Cameron had got that in February (by telling the EU he was giving them one month to come to their senses of he'd be campaigning for LEAVE) we would probably never have Brexited.Paul_Bedfordshire said:I told you so, I told you so:
"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.
Thatcher had that, May appears to.
0 -
It will be reciprocal, I am sure.RobD said:
If their leaders can negotiate a similar arrangementsurbiton said:
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?Paul_Bedfordshire said:I told you so, I told you so:
"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."[not to mention still pay a goodly sum of our EU contributions into their coffers for single market access....]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.
I suspect the French can be sorted by giving them transitional access to UK fishing waters for the 7 years in return (although they will have to play by our conservation rules with an end to throwback I hope)0 -
@michaelsavage: This could really change the tactics for many moderates. If they can survive an election, they could finally get the party back.
They need to avoid deselection, so it turns out an early election could actually help Labour in the long run0 -
I've always seen you as a target for the "Amusing The Populace, Dancing Amusingly in Public Wearing Amusing Costumes and Wiffle Stick Waving Party (Marxist-Leninist Alliance)".Morris_Dancer said:Mr. kle4, I agree (though I'm hardly a Lib Dem target voter).
A more pressing problem may be that allying with Labour right now is like a rat jumping onto a sinking ship.
0 -
The real irony of May's PMQ debut was that she had to invoke Thatcher.
Does she not have a personality of her own ? Why can't she be the first May ?0 -
Indeed, I also have concerns that it won't work properly, especially on an older machine. ie not broken don't fix it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- it is Microsoft's last-minute drive to the deadline on Friday. Some say you should upgrade and immediately downgrade but it seems too much hassle. For myself, I've upgraded my spare from Windows 8 but am keeping Windows 7 on my main machine. Microsoft's new licensing model (where you effectively lease rather than own the OS) and intrusive data-gathering are unwelcome developments.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Anyone here being still bugged by windows 10 spam. I've got a windows box in the corner now with a hazard warning.
Note to Microsoft. Windows 7 works, windows 10 might not. I'm not taking the risk. Go away.
And next time I might buy a chromebook powered pc.
If there was a book on it I would be tempted to put a fair bit of cash on Microsoft just extending the deadline after July 29th.0 -
She heads off for Finchley but ends up at Dagenham; three stops past Barking.DecrepitJohnL said:Off-topic: I've just spent my three quid on Margaret Thatcher's Long Walk to Finchley from the BBC's store. No spoilers please.
0 -
You can't. It is £25 now. So, only Tories can join.paulyork64 said:
You couldve joined the labour party for that.DecrepitJohnL said:Off-topic: I've just spent my three quid on Margaret Thatcher's Long Walk to Finchley from the BBC's store. No spoilers please.
0 -
Thanks MD. I'll give it a miss but good luck with your bet!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Freggles, I agree, there are significant future possibilities that may make Pokemon Go look small and unpopular by comparison.
I just hope mainstream games don't develop mobile side-streams ('finding' bonuses in the real world, for example).
Mr. StJohn, if it's dry, 70-80%, perhaps more.
Hungary is the least likely circuit to see one. Wide track, lots of run off.
The Virtual Safety Car also makes one less likely. It's not impossible, but the odds seem a bit off-kilter to me.
Mr. kle4, I agree (though I'm hardly a Lib Dem target voter).
A more pressing problem may be that allying with Labour right now is like a rat jumping onto a sinking ship.0 -
Probably the most ludicrous piece I have ever read on this site.
Of course if Cameron did not have an overall majority he could have blamed the failure to hold a referendum on the lack of it. However the much greater mistake is not in eliminating the Lib Dems but from having the ridiculous cave in to his party nutters of a referendum in the first place. The idea of keeping the Lib Dems as some sort of political pets is hardly realistic.
However, the article reaches absurdity in the suggestion that Nick Clegg's negotiating skills could have won a better pre referendum deal. Yes, these were the skills so evidently on display when he destroyed his own party with the cave in on tuition fees and much else besides!!!0 -
Cromebook is fantastic. I'm a convert ..Paul_Bedfordshire said:Anyone here being still bugged by windows 10 spam. I've got a windows box in the corner now with a hazard warning.
Note to Microsoft. Windows 7 works, windows 10 might not. I'm not taking the risk. Go away.
And next time I might buy a chromebook powered pc.
0 -
Good morning all.kle4 said:
For my part, the EU was always a decent idea in theory but in reality its execution was unpalatable, and the fundamental truth was it was incapable of change, incapable of sufficient flexibility, to make it more palatable, because the attitude of the EU bureaucrats and the hard core of EU leaders, did not really believe it needed to be flexible, they did not believe there needed to be any change. Whatever their occasional pronouncements on the subject, their actions showed they did not think it needed change, so it would not.GIN1138 said:
If Cameron had got that in February (by telling the EU he was giving them one month to come to their senses of he'd be campaigning for LEAVE) we would probably never have Brexited.Paul_Bedfordshire said:I to
It is in some ways a shame that it might be able to become something that would have been more palatable to UK voters, only because the UK has left (or rather has indicated it is leaving - a technical point since on both sides politically it cannot be prevented, but technically we're still in).
Everything was set fair after Lisbon. It was the Great Crash that's done for it. The EU was fine when it was pretty much a pure customs union, and would have been fine if full EMU had been accomplished under benign economic conditions.
There's no appetite for another treaty. Germany has been shown what a future recession would look like (direct fiscal transfers from German taxpayers to PIG et al) and don't fancy it. Meanwhile Italy, deprived of its standard 'let's devalue the lira' approach to financial management has been on the cross since 1999.
Pre-2015 I'd have argued that only the A8 were really happy with the EU, but the migration crisis has even spoiled that. They're in revolt against the idea of migrant quotas.
Its now caught between two stools. Almost any direction it goes now will make things worse in the short term.0 -
Then why ask?surbiton said:
It will be reciprocal, I am sure.RobD said:
If their leaders can negotiate a similar arrangementsurbiton said:
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?Paul_Bedfordshire said:I told you so, I told you so:
"Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.
While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce."[not to mention still pay a goodly sum of our EU contributions into their coffers for single market access....]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years
Note that their concern is the deleritous effect on the EU economy of UK leaving the Single Market.
In seven years time, we will have ourselves set up outside the EU, have bilateral trade deals in place and can then decide from a much stronger position what to do i.e. press for renewal of the 7 years movement restrictions, lesser payments, none of the above if no longer an issue or leave single market depending on how things are at the time.
I suspect the French can be sorted by giving them transitional access to UK fishing waters for the 7 years in return (although they will have to play by our conservation rules with an end to throwback I hope)
0 -
@Morris_Dancer http://tinyurl.com/liberalchallenge On sale at Amazon for just over £3 !0
