CarlottaVance said:

Jobabob said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jobabob said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.

Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.

Time for Labour to put forward their Brexit ideas, surely?

No. Time for Labour to keep their gob shut, until the comics that are in charge of the party disappear from the scene (which I fear will be a long time in coming)

Do you actually understand the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

Yes.

Sadly we don't have one.

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

YellowSubmarine said:

On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.

An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.

Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?

I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.

They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.

I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.

It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members.

Quite. Further, assuming the majority of the club want it to grow and prosper, why should they not make it at least moderately unpleasant for those who leave? If only pour encourager les autres?
I’m told that while leaqving the Freemasons (etc) may be amicable, one can suddenly find that one has lost friends.

TonyE said:

During the campaign, I and others often advised that the Remain camp should not act as if the EU were a prison from which no member might ever contemplate leaving.

Since the vote, they have justified their refusal to accept their refusal to accept the vote by trying to scare everyone that it exactly that, and that the EU will Punish us for having the temerity to leave.

You have that ass backwards

It is the Brexiteers who are whining about the EU "punishing" us for leaving

Remainers are pointing out that less than favourable trading terms are the rational, logical, obvious and entirely predictable (and predicted) response to current events

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584407

What could go wrong.

Hands up.

Which of the PB Trumpers are still predicting a Trump win?

Be interesting to know their thoughts.

O/T

Jeremy Paxman on his father: "'I was thrashed with sticks, shoes, cricket stumps, cricket bats or the flat of his hand.’

"In the following chapter, he describes being caned by the head of house at his public school (Malvern). The young Paxman had refused to obey some order from a prefect called Robinson."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-3826112/Your-starter-ten-saucy-question-flummoxed-Jeremy-Paxman-presenter-s-memoir-reveals-all.html

AndyJS said:

O/T

Jeremy Paxman on his father: "'I was thrashed with sticks, shoes, cricket stumps, cricket bats or the flat of his hand.’

"In the following chapter, he describes being caned by the head of house at his public school (Malvern). The young Paxman had refused to obey some order from a prefect called Robinson."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-3826112/Your-starter-ten-saucy-question-flummoxed-Jeremy-Paxman-presenter-s-memoir-reveals-all.html

Isn't his step-mother disputing a lot of the allegations he's making against his late Father?

HurstLlama said:

SandyRentool said:

GeoffM said:

taffys said:

''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''

I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.

The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.

A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.

Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.

Do you want to reflect on that for a while? If Diane Abbott is the best player the PLP has what does that say about the rest?

Sorry that my irony wasn't obvious!

Apparently Jezza has won another seat on the NEC by "promoting" Jon Ashworth

brokenwheel said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584407

What could go wrong.

What Party would he join for his comeback?

Maybe he'll create a new "social democrats" party?

"On the Republican side, Trump’s operation lags well behind Romney’s. Romney had far more offices than Trump does in battleground states like Iowa (13 vs. 5), North Carolina (24 vs. 8), and Virginia (29 vs. 11)."

Jobabob said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jobabob said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jobabob said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.

Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.

Time for Labour to put forward their Brexit ideas, surely?

No. Time for Labour to keep their gob shut, until the comics that are in charge of the party disappear from the scene (which I fear will be a long time in coming)

Do you actually understand the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

Yes.

Sadly we don't have one.

True - but with Keir Stamer taking over the Shadow Brexit role perhaps we might get some more intelligent probing than 'nasty Tories'.....

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

timmo said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@DMcCaffreySKY: Zac Goldsmith, he'll spark by-election if Government give green light to Heathrow, so as early as next week, possibly run as independent.

Surely the local party would just let him run unopposed if he went as an independent. That way there's nothing to lose and on everything else he'll vote with the government.

No chance. The Tories would run a candidate which would let the LDs through the middle

The Lib Dems would most likely get squeezed in such a circumstance, where the fight would undoubtedly be portrayed as Zac v the Tories. Indeed, the Lib Dems might not even stand at all and back Zac given that he won more than three times the LD share (i.e. it'd be mathematically impossible for them to 'come through the middle' without gaining a substantial swing into the bargain too).

If Zac stands as an independent, the Tories don't stand. Prevents him making a great stand, and frees up Tory votes to support him.

I don't think that's a precedent the Conservatives could support. Either Zac stands as a Tory or a Tory stands against him.

It would effectively be "no platforming" him, if the Tories aren't in the race it won't get any coverage which will make his resignation seem pointless. Much in the same way Labour didn't run against David Davis when he resigned over 90 day detention.

On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.

On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...

...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.

I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.

All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.

Gardenwalker said:

On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.

...which is fairly devastating for him, his brand is as a winner.

However, although it's entertaining to watch him melt down, the media won't want to go through the next month with the race looking like a foregone conclusion. He won't have to try very hard to "win" one of the remaining debates.

If someone can explain to me how $1.2434 to $1.2288 to $1.2384 within a couple of hours is possible without manipulation then they can go ahead. There is definitely someone seeing how low they can take Sterling.

Miss Plato, quite agree. Just look at the entirely sympathetic broadcast media coverage of the migrant crisis and contrast it with the public's perspective. The sympathetic approach neither reflects nor has swayed public opinion.

Got to say I really dislike the double standards on especially emotive imagery. Dead child on a Turkish beach gets shown, terrible video of a dazed, bloodied, dusty-faced child gets shown. But there's no comparable image or video produced of the children victims of Bastille Day.

I can see the arguments for either showing such things or not, but there's no defence for producing images in one instance but not the other.

''Why not. Give it a shot. If nothing else it would help scupper Labour in a few more seats and hasten the demise of Corbyn and Co.''

If a new libertarian centre party were to launch, it would need big hitters and star quality. Tone would certainly give it that, add in Mandy and (whisper it) Dave and you might have a going concern.

Gardenwalker said:

On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.

On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...

...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.

I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.

All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.

Blair and new party, possible with D Miliband as leader or major candidate. Centre ground party, no unions. Suddenly the Tories would be in panic mode. That would certainly top 2016 off nicely as a political year.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Gin, the Poison Party? The Peace Party? The Furrowed Brow, Concerned Hand Gesture, I'm A Straight Kinda Guy Party?

Mr. P, if Ashworth takes that deal when the Shadow role can be withdrawn from him at any time then he's daft as a doorknob.

There is a Peace Party already. It's like the Greens but less worldly.

Mr. 43, I agree. As per Mr. Submarine's post, it would've been better to have a firmer vision in mind.

However, the EU has an idea but nothing else. It's approach is to subvert democracy in favour of the ideal, to make economic policy based on political desire, to erode national sovereignty in favour of the ideal.

What is best is to have an idea, and a sense of perspective.

Mr. Herdson, one shudders at the thought.

felix said:

rottenborough said:

Gardenwalker said:

On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.

On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...

...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.

I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.

All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.

Blair and new party, possible with D Miliband as leader or major candidate. Centre ground party, no unions. Suddenly the Tories would be in panic mode. That would certainly top 2016 off nicely as a political year.

The trouble is that the public have long memories and for Iraq alone he'd be pulverised as would almost anyone with him.

Any party with Tony Blair playing a prominent role in it would be in trouble.

WRT Trump, it certainly looks as though he'll lose, but one can't be certain. For all we know, the polls that are good for Trump will turn out to be correct, just as the polls that were good for Brexit turned out to be correct, and the polls that were most favourable to the Conservatives turned out to be the most accurate.

First round preference votes for Highland Culloden

SNP 753
LDem 463
Con 439
Ind Ross 315
Ind Macpherson 274
Green 180
Lab 163
Ind McGrath 158
Ind Lamont 23

Likely to be very close between SNP and Lib Dems

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.

They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.

I think you are completely misunderstanding their reaction. We are leaving, they now have zero interest in us, except obviously as an export market and as a friendly country like Canada. It is absolutely nothing to do with 'humbling' or 'chastening' us, but equally they don't owe us any favours. So they are looking at this entirely from the point of view of the remaining 27 and of the Union as a political project, which they want to preserve. It's all about their domestic politics in each country, and the overall internal politics of the EU.

I am certainly not misunderstanding them and they will certainly not have zero interest in us once we leave.

We have been a European country for centuries (funnily enough they were interested prior to 1973) and they will continue to be. I just think that their approach to saving the EU is madness.

They seem to be heading down a path to lose-lose at the moment.

619 said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

FF43 said:

I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.

Singapore of the North Atlantic, isn't it?

Seriously though I think most intellectual energy has gone into detailing the wrongs of the EU. Now, some energy (by necessity) is going into how we leave the EU. But I've yet to see a coherent case for a prosperous UK beyond the EU.

An ultra free trade libertarian paradise is not politically possible and indeed the global financial crisis savagely exposed some of the assumptions underpinning this model.

Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!

Yes, even if Hillary scrapes home, the underlying problem that Trump represents doesn't go away. A better and less crazy candidate that can fire up the WWC would walk it in the US in 2020. Brexit is our reaction to globalisation not benefiting the working classes, in other countries they are having r face down far right political parties like PVV, AfD, FPO and FN. Whatever we think of UKIP (especially after yesterday's farce) they are not anywhere near the levers of power unlike those mentioned.

In a sense because of our open economy the reaction has come first, but it will come in other countries just as surely as the sun rises in the east.

The answer is to try an ensure our lowest paid benefit from globalisation but still keeping the economy open. Not easy, but I'd rather Brexit than PM Nige in 4 years.

A less crazy candidate wont win the Republican nomination though, unless the RNC fix it. If it was proportional like the democratic one, Trump wouldn't have won.

The RNC by standing with Trump has probably poisoned their party as racists with Hispanic and African American communities as well.

Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.

They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.

I think you are completely misunderstanding their reaction. We are leaving, they now have zero interest in us, except obviously as an export market and as a friendly country like Canada. It is absolutely nothing to do with 'humbling' or 'chastening' us, but equally they don't owe us any favours. So they are looking at this entirely from the point of view of the remaining 27 and of the Union as a political project, which they want to preserve. It's all about their domestic politics in each country, and the overall internal politics of the EU.

If that were indeed the European line, then it would sound as sensible as you did with you negotiation suggestions below.
Sadly the rhetoric from various interested parties does not bear that out at all. The potential for emotion on both sides to overturn reason does not bode particularly well.

MaxPB said:

SandyRentool said:

GeoffM said:

taffys said:

''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''

I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.

The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.

A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.

Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.

Err, right. A shadow HS who will tell Labour voters they're all racists.

Only the white ones max, only the white ones.

I can think of a couple of lovely quotes to throw at that "lovely" lady.

Miss Plato, that's an appalling thing for Abbott to say.

It's 'fewer', not 'less'.

PlatoSaid said:

Martin Daubney
Diane Abbott says Brexit voters "want less foreign-looking people"
52% Sikhs, 30% Muslim/Chinese/Hindus voted Leave https://t.co/hlBbESedfJ https://t.co/CMyYL059HA

Good start to the new job. Of course she's unsackable being so close to Jezza and no one else being available.

PlatoSaid said:

Martin Daubney
Diane Abbott says Brexit voters "want less foreign-looking people"
52% Sikhs, 30% Muslim/Chinese/Hindus voted Leave https://t.co/hlBbESedfJ https://t.co/CMyYL059HA

Well that's 17.25m votes down the pan.

That's quite a decent Con share, isn't it?

Also seems horrendous for LAB

Gardenwalker said:

Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!

This is an interesting point and it is worth considering the counterfactual.

Though things wouldn't have come to a head in quite the same way, it's not true that a narrow Remain vote (and it could only have been fairly narrow if Remain had won - there are, frankly, a lot of people in the UK who do not very much like British membership of the EU) would have brought finality and certainty. It would certainly have re-energised Leave activists and perhaps voters, and the spectre of a second referendum in a few years' time would have risen prominently on the horizon.

It is the natural tendency of the EU to drive, however haphazardly, towards deeper integration on a wide range of fronts, and any one of them could have proved a future a snagging point as those reluctant remain-voters who secured the referendum majority (and it would have been the reluctant ones who brought the Remain tally over 50%) began to wonder if what they'd been sold in the campaign - a special status for Britain, no more federalism or deeper integration for us - might actually have been a whole bunch of crock. And aside from that, the EU has so many deep structural issues at the moment, from governance to the economy to the coordination of policy (banking crises and migration being but two examples, who knows where the next crisis might come from or lurch to?) that one fears another disaster lurks around the corner - and could again have pushed a second bash at Brexit ahead in the polls. (It's a bit of a lose-lose for the EU - either it looks divided, weak and ineffective in the face of disaster, and/or the proposed solution involves more centralising of power e.g. Brussels taking control of refugee allocation. Neither would be a plus in British polls.)

A Remain vote wouldn't mean the Sword of Damocles had gone away. If anything it would be left dangling by a more slender thread. Of course, a Brexit vote means we now have the rather more pressing issue of a sword hurtling towards our heads, but at least it is going to force us to do something rather than fluff and fudge and hope the can will only become unkickable when it's far enough down the road to be someone else's problem. For the last ten years or so, can-kicking has been the favoured sport of governing classes across the world, and they are starting to pay the price for it.

Ultimately, Britain was never really "into" the Grand European Project. And the EU is becoming more and more unlike the kind of primarily trading union that could retain the popular support of the British electorate. The tension had to be resolved sooner or later. The voters chose sooner.

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?

If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.

There were several who ran; they just didn't do very well.

But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.

That's a point that isn't made often enough. The establishment choice - Jeb Bush - made Andy Burnham look like a political colossus.

Mr. X, ha, I didn't realise that at the time but you're right.

Abbott's already off to a failing start. Lucky for her she's up against arguably the most stupid member of the Cabinet.

I wonder who Fox's opposite number is.

PlatoSaid said:

brokenwheel said:

Scott_P said:

Indigo said:

If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.

Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.

If people cared what the media think we wouldn't have voted to leave would we...

Indeed - IIRC in the US, trust in media is down to 32%. Polling here has journalists down in the gutter too. Their 'fact checking' is confirmation bias - ditto 'analysis'.

As a profession, its lost its cache.

no. Thats not what "confirmation bias" means.

Jobabob said:

Hands up.

Which of the PB Trumpers are still predicting a Trump win?

Be interesting to know their thoughts.

Trump will defacto "win" the next debate-media want a close race for viewing figures.

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

edmundintokyo said:

OldKingCole said:

O/t but all of a piece.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/expats-given-vote-for-life-uk-elections-government-says

Britons who have settled overseas permanently are to be given a “vote for life” in British general elections, the government has announced.

The current 15-year limit will be scrapped as part of a bid to strengthen ties with expats abroad following the decision to leave the EU.

That last justification is weird bearing in mind that it was already Conservative policy, and there was no reason to think they wouldn't go through with it.

It's the right policy, though.

Surely if one goes to live in another country one should expect to be part of that country. Some people here get very upset about people clinging to “their”practices, language and laws when they’ve come to live in UK!

Although you wouldn't expect an English banker on a two year stint in Tokyo to become Japanese for the duration

Maybe not, but someone who has lived there for 15 years might want to think about it.

Indigo said:

geoffw said:

A significant voice from the City chips in.
http://brexitcentral.com/stanislas-yassukovich-eu-needs-city-city-needs-eu-debunking-myths-single-market-financial-services/#more-747

That seems like a rather important contribution.

It does, doesn’t it. Does suggest the City needn’t bother about Brexit, and we needn’t worry too much about the effects thereon.

I’d still vote Remain if we ran the referendum again though.

NEW THREAD

619 said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?

If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.

There were several who ran; they just didn't do very well.

But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.

i think rubio or kasiach would be doing better. They would have pivoted fairly quickly

Kasich wouldn't have had to pivot. I think, had he got the nomination, he would be at least 5% up on Hillary with most of the rust belt in the bag, including PA.

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

timmo said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@DMcCaffreySKY: Zac Goldsmith, he'll spark by-election if Government give green light to Heathrow, so as early as next week, possibly run as independent.

Surely the local party would just let him run unopposed if he went as an independent. That way there's nothing to lose and on everything else he'll vote with the government.

No chance. The Tories would run a candidate which would let the LDs through the middle

The Lib Dems would most likely get squeezed in such a circumstance, where the fight would undoubtedly be portrayed as Zac v the Tories. Indeed, the Lib Dems might not even stand at all and back Zac given that he won more than three times the LD share (i.e. it'd be mathematically impossible for them to 'come through the middle' without gaining a substantial swing into the bargain too).

If Zac stands as an independent, the Tories don't stand. Prevents him making a great stand, and frees up Tory votes to support him.

I don't think that's a precedent the Conservatives could support. Either Zac stands as a Tory or a Tory stands against him.

It would effectively be "no platforming" him, if the Tories aren't in the race it won't get any coverage which will make his resignation seem pointless. Much in the same way Labour didn't run against David Davis when he resigned over 90 day detention.

and with Jo Cox's seat they've established the principle they don't contest every seat

(I think they actually should put up a candidate in that situation)

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 43, I agree. As per Mr. Submarine's post, it would've been better to have a firmer vision in mind.

However, the EU has an idea but nothing else. It's approach is to subvert democracy in favour of the ideal, to make economic policy based on political desire, to erode national sovereignty in favour of the ideal.

What is best is to have an idea, and a sense of perspective.

What is best is to have a vision which provides purpose to the group, in this case the citizens - a purpose with which they agree and to which they can subscribe.

What those who fling around the terms 'racist' and 'fascist' with gay abandon ignore is that to create a movement you need a culture, and all culture is about identity, which is as much about who you are not as it is about who you are.

That is why Obama so often says "That is not who we are"

http://freebeacon.com/politics/46-times-president-obama-told-americans-thats-not-who-we-are/

Oh, I see. Obama is a racist.