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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plus if he hadn't done it, it would have been left to Osborne.
They did have the BSIE chairman Stuart Rose to use....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plus if he hadn't done it, it would have been left to Osborne.
They did have the BSIE chairman Stuart Rose to use....
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.
That is one of the odd things -- and most
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What would you have had the LibDems do after the 2010 election?
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.
The LibDems should also -- even if only for cynical reasons -- have made a greater show of talking to Labour.
Both sides were well aware and prepared for the negotiations which is why they proceeded with such speed and ease.
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.
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.
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
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.
What would you have had the LibDems do after the 2010 election?
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.
The LibDems should also -- even if only for cynical reasons -- have made a greater show of talking to Labour.
Both sides were well aware and prepared for the negotiations which is why they proceeded with such speed and ease.
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.
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.
Not th first party to completely go against a manifesto commitment though, and most had less excuse.
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.
Probably so.
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.
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.
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 all
That's a very complacent attitude
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
Corbyn's office is saying Seema had resigned so it wasn't her office anymore and they'd every right to enter.
So JC's team is accusing a black female MP of telling lies? Very socialist. Or have I missed something?
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. No wonder Jeremy can run rings round these losers.
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.
The first point is the killer though. There is no way it could overturn a 1.3million majority.
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.
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.
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.
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 all
That's a very complacent attitude
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.
So you want brexit and FOM.. Sorry ain't gonna happen without major cost implications.. Brexiters won, this is the inevitable outcome.
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.
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 all
That's a very complacent attitude
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 all
That's a very complacent attitude
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.
So you want brexit and FOM.. Sorry ain't gonna happen without major cost implications.. Brexiters won, this is the inevitable outcome.
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.
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.
What would you have had the LibDems do after the 2010 election?
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.
The LibDems should also -- even if only for cynical reasons -- have made a greater show of talking to Labour.
Both sides were well aware and prepared for the negotiations which is why they proceeded with such speed and ease.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Mr. W, why didn't the Lib Dems go for that? Afraid of the National Liberal absorption repeating itself?
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.
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.
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'!
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.
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.
@sundersays: Pro-Brexit MPs not unified on Brexit. 25 MPs organise to block single market; while Boris promises City passporting https://t.co/RolmAJ9MEd
"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."
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.
Incorrect.
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.
@sundersays: Pro-Brexit MPs not unified on Brexit. 25 MPs organise to block single market; while Boris promises City passporting https://t.co/RolmAJ9MEd
Of course they're not unified on what type of Brexit is wanted, who ever thought they were?
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.
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.
Incorrect.
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.
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
The claim is:
"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.
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.
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.
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.
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.
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.
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.
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.
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.
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?
Mr. W, is Ashdown's idea some sort of 'progressive alliance', by any chance?
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.
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.
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.
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.
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.
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?
Got it.
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)"
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
Thanks MD. I only have money in my 365 account so ive had a nibble at 11/10.
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"?
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.
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'!
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.
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
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.
Incorrect.
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.
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.
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?
Were the government's changes aimed at disadvantaging Labour? Yes.
From the report linked below:
"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"
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.
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.
Incorrect.
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.
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.
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?
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.
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.
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.
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.
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.
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?
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.
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'!
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.
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
That sounds dangerous.
How will Matron safeguard them all?
Will Durgin' Sturgeon activate the child-supervisors?
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.
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.
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.
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.
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.
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.
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?
I'd rounded the EC figures to 8 million in December 2015 of whom 3 million registered by the referendum.
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%.
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.
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.
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.
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.
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?
Got it.
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)"
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 etc
Edited extra bit: Mr. W, I am unfamiliar with the Jo Grimond doctrine.
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.
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.
No it's not as the numbers don't add up.
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.
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.
Where does it say 8 million were removed from the register?
Got it.
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)"
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 etc
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%.
"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....]
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)
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Incorrect.
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.
Yes, the Lib Dems wanted ministerial limos and got them.
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?
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.
Many, many Lib Dem voters thought they were voting for a party that would prioritise voting reform as a key component on any deal.
Not a referendum on a suggestion for a miserable little compromise. (Caveat, I actually like AV).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
"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....]
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)
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?
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.
Do you see this is the Tories and their chums ripping off the taxpaayer, Mr Alistair?
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.
"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....]
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)
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?
If their leaders can negotiate a similar arrangement
Anyone here being still bugged by windows 10 spam. I've got a windows box in the corner now with a hazard warning.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
"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....]
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)
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?
If their leaders can negotiate a similar arrangement
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.
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)".
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.
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.
Indeed, I also have concerns that it won't work properly, especially on an older machine. ie not broken don't fix it.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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).
Good morning all.
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.
"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....]
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)
Would the brake also apply to UK citizens moving to the EU countries ?
If their leaders can negotiate a similar arrangement
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/mechanic-makes-15000-mile-round-trip-from-london-to-mongolia---t/
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.
In contrast the Conservatives played their hand extremely well.
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.
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.
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.
No wonder Jeremy can run rings round these losers.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/23/education-academies-funding-expenses
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.
Compared to the Scottish Lib Dems who did brilliantly at the Holyrood negotiations with Labour it is bizarre.
Ooooppps.
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.
"herbivores' Momentum".
Uncomfortably close to reality I suspect.
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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Tom Holland
Magnificently, the name of the British ambassador in Munich during Napoleon's attempted invasion of Britain was Francis Drake.
Edited extra bit: Mr. W, I am unfamiliar with the Jo Grimond doctrine.
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.pdf
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
"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"
Clearly the EU had lost democratic legitimacy for half the population which is unsustainable. A referendum would have had to happen sooner or later.
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.
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.
How will Matron safeguard them all?
Will Durgin' Sturgeon activate the child-supervisors?
Good day all.
"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)
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.
Instant classic TV
Not a referendum on a suggestion for a miserable little compromise. (Caveat, I actually like AV).
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).
I managed to miss the highly regarded Windows 7.
Thatcher had that, May appears to.
They need to avoid deselection, so it turns out an early election could actually help Labour in the long run
Does she not have a personality of her own ? Why can't she be the first May ?
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.
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!!!
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.