There are loads of well paid sinecures in the UK. And our Conservative government will be delighted to ensure that any Blairite MP wishing to retire early will get one. As it happens Reed and Hunt are very well qualified for the ones they are getting which is a highly unusual bonus.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
Assuming of course that it in the government's gift
"Bonsoir M. Barnier, having won the approval of parliament we hereby enact Article 50 on behalf of the British people"
"Magnifique... and we offer you... nothing, now piss off"
Regardless of the democratic mandate, or May playing Russian roulette with the economy, the negotiations can only go in the direction of giving us a choice between very hard Brexit and a less special deal than we have now.
Theory: Labour are currently less vulnerable in parliamentary by-elections than in either council by-elections or a general election.
Reasoning: More differential turnout from those who remain enthusiastic about Corbyn will occur in a parliamentary by-election than either in a council by-election (low turnout all around) or a general election (high turnout all around)
Result: Forcing by-elections might be a less good way of weakening Corbyn than is supposed, and present a falsely sunny picture to the Labour leadership. Likely decent wins in Stoke-on-Trent and Leigh. Copeland a slightly different case, the technical middle class and unionised workers most likely to be pro-Corbyn elsewhere likely also to be pro-nuclear here and thus more ambivalent, but sounds like NHS closures are a hot local issue here too.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Of the 48% though, quite a lot are Conservatives who are pretty relaxed about leaving the EU (eg people like May and Hammond) , and many of the others are Labour, SNP, Green, or Plaid Cymru loyalists. The actual pool of potential Lib Dem votes is much less, although certainly bigger than the 8% that voted for the party in 2015.
More pertinently, people vote differently in different types of election, especially in mid-term. The Lib Dems' poll ratings will be the best guide to the party's vote share in Parliamentary elections.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
Assuming of course that it in the government's gift
"Bonsoir M. Barnier, having won the approval of parliament we hereby enact Article 50 on behalf of the British people"
"Magnifique... and we offer you... nothing, now piss off"
Regardless of the democratic mandate, or May playing Russian roulette with the economy, the negotiations can only go in the direction of giving us a choice between very hard Brexit and a less special deal than we have now.
Colour me suspicious, but why would someone who is an avowed federalist suggest such a thing?
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
Assuming of course that it in the government's gift
"Bonsoir M. Barnier, having won the approval of parliament we hereby enact Article 50 on behalf of the British people"
"Magnifique... and we offer you... nothing, now piss off"
Regardless of the democratic mandate, or May playing Russian roulette with the economy, the direction of negotiations can only go in the direction of giving us a choice between very hard Brexit and a less special deal than we have now.
That is a perfectly respectable view for a EU federalist to take. Other people don't see it that way because they see it as increasing our options outside the EU, and more important to most, decreasing the level of control exerted on the country from people we didn't elect and cant sack. You don't value these later factors so ofcourse every option looks like a bad option to you.
Theory: Labour are currently less vulnerable in parliamentary by-elections than in either council by-elections or a general election.
Reasoning: More differential turnout from those who remain enthusiastic about Corbyn will occur in a parliamentary by-election than either in a council by-election (low turnout all around) or a general election (high turnout all around)
Result: Forcing by-elections might be a less good way of weakening Corbyn than is supposed, and present a falsely sunny picture to the Labour leadership. Likely decent wins in Stoke-on-Trent and Leigh. Copeland a slightly different case, the technical middle class and unionised workers most likely to be pro-Corbyn elsewhere likely also to be pro-nuclear here and thus more ambivalent, but sounds like NHS closures are a hot local issue here too.
I subscribe to this theory:
P.S. - I hate it when someone puts the amorphous theory going around in my head into actual words and logical order.
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
I think that is the key point. It is all very well to have strong beliefs but being in opposition and criticising for the sake of it must be soul destroying to anyone who (delusionally or otherwise) thinks that they are capable of actually doing something.
Labour have already lost in 2020. They may well have already lost in 2025. How much of your life do you want to spend having pointless discussions and debates without ever having the chance to make a real decision?
Reasoning: More differential turnout from those who remain enthusiastic about Corbyn will occur in a parliamentary by-election than either in a council by-election (low turnout all around) or a general election (high turnout all around)
and because byelections allow party headquarters to saturation bomb the locale with activists and gee up the party faithful and get them out to vote, where as on county council and general elections they are spreading their effort all over the country and the local effect is greatly muted.
I remember being taken to the museum in Paisley by my mother who left school at the age of 14 when I was 5. She was insistent that I did not climb onto the stuffed animals which were the first things you saw when you entered the building.
We were not considered middle class as far as I know.
Have I misread this post? Is it an eats shoots and leaves?
Labour have already lost in 2020. They may well have already lost in 2025. How much of your life do you want to spend having pointless discussions and debates without ever having the chance to make a real decision?
It's worse than that, even if they win in 2020, it will be a Corbynite win (god help us) and they still wont get a sniff of a ministerial job. Likely the same will apply in 2025 except it will be a slightly more presentable member of the hard left.
There is always the possibility that Labour decide that they didn't win with Corbyn because he wasn't left wing enough, there is a precedent for this sort of behaviour
Getting matched on Labour at 1.88 here.. they were 1.29 opening quote!
It seems absurd to me. It's one thing thinking one of the other parties might be in with a shout. But Labour should be heavy favourites even in the current polling climate.
That is a perfectly respectable view for a EU federalist to take. Other people don't see it that way because they see it as increasing our options outside the EU, and more important to most, decreasing the level of control exerted on the country from people we didn't elect and cant sack. You don't value these later factors so ofcourse every option looks like a bad option to you.
Having discussed this at length with people who hold the view that Brexit is a way to increase our options outside the EU I think this is a mischaracterisation of their true position.
What they actually want is to give the government no choice but to lean more heavily on options outside the EU. Most of the more realistic things they demand are entirely achievable while remaining members of the EU, but they hope that Brexit will force the government to pursue them with more vigour.
Getting matched on Labour at 1.88 here.. they were 1.29 opening quote!
It seems absurd to me. It's one thing thinking one of the other parties might be in with a shout. But Labour should be heavy favourites even in the current polling climate.
I'd be very surprised if it isn't a Labour win, simply because it's so hard for the Opposition to lose a seat in mid-term.
Longer term, I think that Labour are in a lot of trouble in Stoke.
I remember being taken to the museum in Paisley by my mother who left school at the age of 14 when I was 5. She was insistent that I did not climb onto the stuffed animals which were the first things you saw when you entered the building.
We were not considered middle class as far as I know.
Have I misread this post? Is it an eats shoots and leaves?
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
What about Juncker? Surely it's in his interests?
Certainly not. An EU superstate would have to be democratically elected and what chance would the incompetent muppet have then?
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
I do think there's a case for limiting free admission to UK residents.
I remember being taken to the museum in Paisley by my mother who left school at the age of 14 when I was 5. She was insistent that I did not climb onto the stuffed animals which were the first things you saw when you entered the building.
We were not considered middle class as far as I know.
Have I misread this post? Is it an eats shoots and leaves?
Drawing the 2 threads close together, the Gladstone Pottery Museum (which I guess from the map would be in Stoke-on-Trent South) is a personal favourite museum. The pottery bit is very engaging, but the toilet museum provided the best entertainment on the day as my brother-in-law, degree-educated and aged in his 30s, went around making flushing noises and giggling. Amazing the pride those Victorians took in their sanitary ware and amazing the amusement we get from that!
There are loads of well paid sinecures in the UK. And our Conservative government will be delighted to ensure that any Blairite MP wishing to retire early will get one. As it happens Reed and Hunt are very well qualified for the ones they are getting which is a highly unusual bonus.
Being the director of the V&A (my least favourite of London's great museums) doubtless involves about 100 times more work than being master of a college at Oxford or Cambridge.
There are always plenty ofwell-paid sinecures for the well-heeled urban luvvies.
Would you call Tristram Hunt "urban"? I imagine his daddy, Baron Julian - another Trinity man - has a country house somewhere even if he's a mere life peer. Tristram's grandfather was Roland Hunt CMG, whose father-in-law was a CBE, whose own father-in-law was Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton who had an awfully bushy moustache. Hardly townies, although admittedly Tristram might do embarrassingly much of his hobnobbing in Islington rather than on the grouse moor.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
ID cards.
Or just use driving licences, which most people have, or any other reasonable proof of a UK address (bank statement, utility bill etc). Sure a few ex-pats who haven't given up their UK licences might sneak in, but it's one of those things were 100% accuracy wouldn't be worth achieving.
Drawing the 2 threads close together, the Gladstone Pottery Museum (which I guess from the map would be in Stoke-on-Trent South) is a personal favourite museum. The pottery bit is very engaging, but the toilet museum provided the best entertainment on the day as my brother-in-law, degree-educated and aged in his 30s, went around making flushing noises and giggling. Amazing the pride those Victorians took in their sanitary ware and amazing the amusement we get from that!
Getting matched on Labour at 1.88 here.. they were 1.29 opening quote!
It seems absurd to me. It's one thing thinking one of the other parties might be in with a shout. But Labour should be heavy favourites even in the current polling climate.
At the risk of comparing Apples with Oranges, the claim that Lib Dems are in with a good chance because they came 2nd in 2005 and 2010 may not be so great
2005 and 2010 were Peak Lib Dem I think we can agree... they scored 47 and 43% in those years' Richmond Park Elections.. against Zac last year they got 49% (lab soft pedalling and no Green)
In Stoke 05 and 10 they got 18 and 21%. That, added to the fact it is a Leave rather than Remain area, makes me think they can get 2nd at best.
Have the Conservatives no chance at all? Or less than 8% chance???
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
What about Juncker? Surely it's in his interests?
Certainly not. An EU superstate would have to be democratically elected and what chance would the incompetent muppet have then?
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
Strong words from you, David, and all the more amusing for it!
Not top price on either, but I think the co-dependency makes up for it:
Doubles (x1) 1 . Labour (Copeland by-election British) 2 . Labour (Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election British) 1 line at £20.00 Total stake for this bet: £20.00 Potential return: £82.05
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
Indeed - but I don't think the LDs have that. Farron seeks to thwart it and that won't wash i'm afraid.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
Indeed - but I don't think the LDs have that. Farron seeks to thwart it and that won't wash i'm afraid.
With you.
I'm sure there is a sizeable number of people who want to turn back the clock. The LDs were always a party of the unachievable ideal. It will take them a long time to recover from actually having been in government.
Getting matched on Labour at 1.88 here.. they were 1.29 opening quote!
It seems absurd to me. It's one thing thinking one of the other parties might be in with a shout. But Labour should be heavy favourites even in the current polling climate.
At the risk of comparing Apples with Oranges, the claim that Lib Dems are in with a good chance because they came 2nd in 2005 and 2010 may not be so great
In addition to the Brexit effect, I think you have to consider every voter who was broadly content with the government in the period 2010-2015 as up for grabs for the Lib Dems. They suffered in the short term but will gain a long-term credibility boost from having been in government during that time.
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
Labour have already lost in 2020.
JohnO made me think.
Let's say Balls comes back in (via a by-election), Corbyn is ousted and then Balls becomes Labour leader. He swiftly goes a bit old-Labour, ditches most of the identity politics, goes patriotic, pro-defence, pro-immigration control, but more economic protection and public services reforms that strongly appeal to the white working classes.
Then let's say May totally f*cks up, is totally outperformed by Balls politically, sours the milk with Trump, alienates everyone in the EU, and screws up Brexit, satisfying nobody, leading to a recession, and a real collapse in the currency.
It's not inconceivable the Tories then fail to get boundary change through, drop 15 seats to the LDs, and drop 40-50 seats to Balls, in which case we are in hung-parliament territory. And Nicola Sturgeon might have more tact in playing that card next time.
So very unlikely, but not impossible to have a Labour PM post GE2020.
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
What about Juncker? Surely it's in his interests?
Certainly not. An EU superstate would have to be democratically elected and what chance would the incompetent muppet have then?
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
Strong words from you, David, and all the more amusing for it!
Juncker has been a disaster for the EU and it's a measure of his arrogance that he's still in office after losing one of the biggest members and contributors.
Getting matched on Labour at 1.88 here.. they were 1.29 opening quote!
It seems absurd to me. It's one thing thinking one of the other parties might be in with a shout. But Labour should be heavy favourites even in the current polling climate.
At the risk of comparing Apples with Oranges, the claim that Lib Dems are in with a good chance because they came 2nd in 2005 and 2010 may not be so great
In addition to the Brexit effect, I think you have to consider every voter who was broadly content with the government in the period 2010-2015 as up for grabs for the Lib Dems. They suffered in the short term but will gain a long-term credibility boost from having been in government during that time.
I think if they were broadly happy w the govt in that period, they wouldn't have voted so overwhelmingly for Brexit
There are loads of well paid sinecures in the UK. And our Conservative government will be delighted to ensure that any Blairite MP wishing to retire early will get one. As it happens Reed and Hunt are very well qualified for the ones they are getting which is a highly unusual bonus.
Being the director of the V&A (my least favourite of London's great museums) doubtless involves about 100 times more work than being master of a college at Oxford or Cambridge.
There are always plenty ofwell-paid sinecures for the well-heeled urban luvvies.
Would you call Tristram Hunt "urban"? I imagine his daddy, Baron Julian - another Trinity man - has a country house somewhere even if he's a mere life peer. Tristram's grandfather was Roland Hunt CMG, whose father-in-law was a CBE, whose own father-in-law was Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton who had an awfully bushy moustache. Hardly townies, although admittedly Tristram might do embarrassingly much of his hobnobbing in Islington rather than on the grouse moor.
The upper classes always have a town house in the city alongside the country seat. If not he's not remotely aristocratic!
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
Labour have already lost in 2020.
JohnO made me think.
Let's say Balls comes back in (via a by-election), Corbyn is ousted and then Balls becomes Labour leader. He swiftly goes a bit old-Labour, ditches most of the identity politics, goes patriotic, pro-defence, pro-immigration control, but more economic protection and public services reforms that strongly appeal to the white working classes.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Of the 48% though, quite a lot are Conservatives who are pretty relaxed about leaving the EU (eg people like May and Hammond) , and many of the others are Labour, SNP, Green, or Plaid Cymru loyalists. The actual pool of potential Lib Dem votes is much less, although certainly bigger than the 8% that voted for the party in 2015.
More pertinently, people vote differently in different types of election, especially in mid-term. The Lib Dems' poll ratings will be the best guide to the party's vote share in Parliamentary elections.
Notwithstanding opinion polls, I think that were there a 2nd referendum now (and HMG would clearly be on the "Leave" side) that it'd be carried by at least 58-59% to Leave because Armageddon hasn't materialised, and, as HMG is now showing the way, many of the loyalist Tories would fall in behind that.
Which is why Remainers should be careful what they wish for.
Breaking news: Residents of Jaywick worried that their homes will not be washed away.
LOL
Jaywick is one of the most deprived parts of the country, and the evacuees will have had to abandon most of whatever little they do own (which, in many cases, will be uninsured) to the mercy of a potentially lethal storm surge, as they flee for their lives.
Apart from that, the situation is absolutely fucking hilarious.
I doubt any will be insured , they sure looked like a poor lot on the TV series , living chaotic lives in absolute dumps. However to counter that , not many were trying to help themselves and they were champions at drinking , smoking , drugs , court appearances and making the outside of the places they lived look like bomb sites. So whilst I can appreciate their situation they do not seem to be very interested in doing anything about it.
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
Labour have already lost in 2020.
JohnO made me think.
Let's say Balls comes back in (via a by-election), Corbyn is ousted and then Balls becomes Labour leader. He swiftly goes a bit old-Labour, ditches most of the identity politics, goes patriotic, pro-defence, pro-immigration control, but more economic protection and public services reforms that strongly appeal to the white working classes.
Coming to a working men's club near you:
And many far worse images besides!!
But, the WWC have moved on from the 1970s, now, and Balls would get a hearing.
Which is why Remainers should be careful what they wish for.
Why? The worst that can happen would be an endorsement of the direction taken by the government and if that's what will happen, it would be unifying to get a stronger mandate for it.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
Indeed - but I don't think the LDs have that. Farron seeks to thwart it and that won't wash i'm afraid.
With you.
I'm sure there is a sizeable number of people who want to turn back the clock. The LDs were always a party of the unachievable ideal. It will take them a long time to recover from actually having been in government.
I voted remain. Like many others I still vote Conservative and want the best deal going but I accept the democratic decision. Funny that the LDs have a problem with that - maybe they;re not so keen on the democracy gig after all.
Others have asked for advice on here and found it helpful so i am trying the same.
I'm thinking if buying a flat for the first time jointly with a family member. I earn in $ which I think complicates things. What advice or experience do people have with mortgage brokers?
$ earnings will be complicated. Are they UK sourced? Either way you should probably go to a broker because it's a joint mortgage as well. John Charcol are the best, albeit not cheap.
Stoke-on-Trent Central had the lowest turnout (49.9%) of any constituency in 2015. Between that and the strong Leave vote, could there be room for Ukip to win off the back of occasional voters?
There are loads of well paid sinecures in the UK. And our Conservative government will be delighted to ensure that any Blairite MP wishing to retire early will get one. As it happens Reed and Hunt are very well qualified for the ones they are getting which is a highly unusual bonus.
Being the director of the V&A (my least favourite of London's great museums) doubtless involves about 100 times more work than being master of a college at Oxford or Cambridge.
There are always plenty ofwell-paid sinecures for the well-heeled urban luvvies.
Would you call Tristram Hunt "urban"? I imagine his daddy, Baron Julian - another Trinity man - has a country house somewhere even if he's a mere life peer. Tristram's grandfather was Roland Hunt CMG, whose father-in-law was a CBE, whose own father-in-law was Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton who had an awfully bushy moustache. Hardly townies, although admittedly Tristram might do embarrassingly much of his hobnobbing in Islington rather than on the grouse moor.
The upper classes always have a town house in the city alongside the country seat. If not he's not remotely aristocratic!
Perhaps Tristram finds country society confined and unvarying for his taste.
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
What about Juncker? Surely it's in his interests?
Certainly not. An EU superstate would have to be democratically elected and what chance would the incompetent muppet have then?
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
Strong words from you, David, and all the more amusing for it!
Juncker has been a disaster for the EU and it's a measure of his arrogance that he's still in office after losing one of the biggest members and contributors.
His manifesto for 'election' said he'd solve the British problem in the EU.
He failed abysmally, so why the f*ck is he still there?
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
Labour have already lost in 2020.
JohnO made me think.
Let's say Balls comes back in (via a by-election), Corbyn is ousted and then Balls becomes Labour leader. He swiftly goes a bit old-Labour, ditches most of the identity politics, goes patriotic, pro-defence, pro-immigration control, but more economic protection and public services reforms that strongly appeal to the white working classes.
Then let's say May totally f*cks up, is totally outperformed by Balls politically, sours the milk with Trump, alienates everyone in the EU, and screws up Brexit, satisfying nobody, leading to a recession, and a real collapse in the currency.
It's not inconceivable the Tories then fail to get boundary change through, drop 15 seats to the LDs, and drop 40-50 seats to Balls, in which case we are in hung-parliament territory. And Nicola Sturgeon might have more tact in playing that card next time.
So very unlikely, but not impossible to have a Labour PM post GE2020.
Interesting speculation.
One could feel that Balls is rather more Trump's sort of politician that May is as well, Balls is very pro-American, has had experience there both professionally and academically, and is something of a brash showman himself.
Presumably the Guardian reading classes would leave for the Lib Dems en-masse if this was the new Labour party line, but they might choke a bit on Farron's social conservatism.
Also even if May screws the pooch on BrExit we will be out in some shape of form by 2020, so the question is will the public see Balls and his new platform as the answer to the new world post-EU... and in this case one assumes the Tories will have hung May out to dry somewhen in 2019 if not before and someone else will already be in the saddle by election time.
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
What about Juncker? Surely it's in his interests?
Certainly not. An EU superstate would have to be democratically elected and what chance would the incompetent muppet have then?
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
Strong words from you, David, and all the more amusing for it!
Juncker has been a disaster for the EU and it's a measure of his arrogance that he's still in office after losing one of the biggest members and contributors.
His manifesto for 'election' said he'd solve the British problem in the EU.
He failed abysmally, so why the f*ck is he still there?
Arguably, the British problem in the EU has been solved, along with the EU problem in Britain.
Getting matched on Labour at 1.88 here.. they were 1.29 opening quote!
It seems absurd to me. It's one thing thinking one of the other parties might be in with a shout. But Labour should be heavy favourites even in the current polling climate.
I'd be very surprised if it isn't a Labour win, simply because it's so hard for the Opposition to lose a seat in mid-term.
Longer term, I think that Labour are in a lot of trouble in Stoke.
Oppositions losing seats are more common than governments winning them, but still rare.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
My foundation puts on a national exhibition each year. (This year it is Surrealism with some lovely Salvador Dali pieces).
We absolutely debate charging everytime. So far we've decided not to (because our raison d'etre is to promote regional museums so we are driven by footfall to some extent). But it probably costs the foundation a couple of hundred thousand a year - we chose to spend the money in that day because we think it is beneficial.
But it's ludicrous to have a policy insisting on free entry (or, technically, making eligibility for public support dependent on not charging). It might be right for some museums and wrong for others - this shouldn't be a decision for central government. Changing that was one of Ed Vaisey's few intelligent thoughts - but Cameron threw him under a bus because of some luvvie whinging
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
Labour have already lost in 2020.
JohnO made me think.
Let's say Balls comes back in (via a by-election), Corbyn is ousted and then Balls becomes Labour leader. He swiftly goes a bit old-Labour, ditches most of the identity politics, goes patriotic, pro-defence, pro-immigration control, but more economic protection and public services reforms that strongly appeal to the white working classes.
Then let's say May totally f*cks up, is totally outperformed by Balls politically, sours the milk with Trump, alienates everyone in the EU, and screws up Brexit, satisfying nobody, leading to a recession, and a real collapse in the currency.
It's not inconceivable the Tories then fail to get boundary change through, drop 15 seats to the LDs, and drop 40-50 seats to Balls, in which case we are in hung-parliament territory. And Nicola Sturgeon might have more tact in playing that card next time.
So very unlikely, but not impossible to have a Labour PM post GE2020.
Presumably the Guardian reading classes would leave for the Lib Dems en-masse if this was the new Labour party line, but they might choke a bit on Farron's social conservatism.
Also even if May screws the pooch on BrExit we will be out in some shape of form by 2020, so the question is will the public see Balls and his new platform as the answer to the new world post-EU... and in this case one assumes the Tories will have hung May out to dry somewhen in 2019 if not before and someone else will already be in the saddle by election time.
Yes, in that scenario, May might be dumped, but the damage would likely carry over, and who's to say the replacement will be anymore popular over what would probably be a divided party that had lost economic credibility with the voters?
The Guardian reading classes would vote tactically to get rid of The Tories. They'd probably like a Labour/SNP/LD coalition Government as they'd hope the LDs/SNP would force Balls to socially liberalise.
We'd probably get PR as a result and constitutional reform, which we probably need anyway, and it might be attractive to some voters to use the new Brexit powers for a bit more economic statism and subsidy.
In fact, there's an argument to say that - used well - the new Brexit powers could be an electoral saviour for Labour. For its return to power at least.
If ukip don't win this they should pack up as a party.
UKIP are going to be at a low ebb at the moment, most people who voted for them before are waiting to see how much of BrExit is meant by BrExit.
If May is true to her word and the UK leaves the Single Market, ditches the CJEU and we end up pay rather little to the EU, and nothing in the medium term, then UKIP is dead in the water.
If it turns out to be a load of smoke and mirrors and bullshit, and May tries to sell the country some sort of associate membership which is EU or EEA in all but name, and critically offers people nothing of freedom of movement, or the ECJ, then the kippers will be well over 20% by the next election.
Which is why Remainers should be careful what they wish for.
Why? The worst that can happen would be an endorsement of the direction taken by the government and if that's what will happen, it would be unifying to get a stronger mandate for it.
Indeed. But if you're punting for the vote for a reversal, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
What about Juncker? Surely it's in his interests?
Certainly not. An EU superstate would have to be democratically elected and what chance would the incompetent muppet have then?
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
Strong words from you, David, and all the more amusing for it!
Juncker has been a disaster for the EU and it's a measure of his arrogance that he's still in office after losing one of the biggest members and contributors.
His manifesto for 'election' said he'd solve the British problem in the EU.
To be fair he has solved the British problem with the EU. Although, I guess not in a way he envisaged.
Outgoing US ambassador says that encouraging Brexit is the height of folly.
He means other EU countries Brexiting, which they won't.
The outgoing US Ambassador must be an Obama appointee. It would 100% be in the UK's interest to see other EU countries exit. An EU superdstate is not in the interests of a single EU citizen.
What about Juncker? Surely it's in his interests?
Certainly not. An EU superstate would have to be democratically elected and what chance would the incompetent muppet have then?
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
Strong words from you, David, and all the more amusing for it!
Juncker has been a disaster for the EU and it's a measure of his arrogance that he's still in office after losing one of the biggest members and contributors.
His manifesto for 'election' said he'd solve the British problem in the EU.
He failed abysmally, so why the f*ck is he still there?
Arguably, the British problem in the EU has been solved, along with the EU problem in Britain.
We solved it ourselves, because he didn't.
But he was 'elected' on a platform to reform our membership to keep us in, and he did a truly f*cking shit job.
He should have had the decency to resign. The fact he hasn't - and that his resignation hasn't even been demanded - is very telling about the sort of organisation the EU is.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
Add £1-2 per night to price of a central London hotel room, hypothocated to London museums. Redistribute the grant in a us to smaller museums nationwide.
"A fifth and last priority for me as Commission President will be to give an answer to the British question. No reasonable politician can ignore the fact that, during the next five years, we will have to find solutions for the political concerns of the United Kingdom. We have to do this if we want to keep the UK within the European Union – which I would like to do as Commission President. As Commission President, I will work for a fair deal with Britain. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU, while allowing the Eurozone to integrate further. The UK will need to understand that in the Eurozone, we need more Europe, not less. On the other hand, the other EU countries will have to accept that the UK will never participate in the euro, even if we may regret this. We have to accept that the UK will not become a member of the Schengen area. And I am also ready to accept that the UK will stay outside new EU institutions such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, meant to improve the fight against fraud in the EU, but clearly rejected by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have to respect such clear positions of the British Parliament, based on the British “opt out” Protocol. David Cameron has recently written down a number of further key demands in an article published in the Daily Telegraph. As Commission President, I will be ready to talk to him about these demands in a fair and reasonable manner. My red line in such talks would be the integrity of the single market and its four freedoms; and the possibility to have more Europe within the Eurozone to strengthen the single currency shared so far by 18 and soon by 19 Member States. But I have the impression that this is as important for Britain as it will be for the next President of the Commission. "
Yes, that progressive thingy lasted a long time didn't it.
Parties standing aside on the basis that 'X believes in the same as we do' generally do so through self-deception, misunderstanding why the two parties exist in the first place.
If ukip don't win this they should pack up as a party.
UKIP are going to be at a low ebb at the moment, most people who voted for them before are waiting to see how much of BrExit is meant by BrExit.
If May is true to her word and the UK leaves the Single Market, ditches the CJEU and we end up pay rather little to the EU, and nothing in the medium term, then UKIP is dead in the water.
If it turns out to be a load of smoke and mirrors and bullshit, and May tries to sell the country some sort of associate membership which is EU or EEA in all but name, and critically offers people nothing of freedom of movement, or the ECJ, then the kippers will be well over 20% by the next election.
Consider this: Tristram Hunt is fully 25 years younger than Jeremy Corbyn. Jamie Reed, 24 years younger. Men in the prime of life, their early/mid 40s, making way for 67 year old Corbyn.
The full Guardian article characterises the issue well although there is semantic debate as to whether this flaw is a 'backdoor' or simply a user friendly feature that makes the messaging system slightly more vulnerable.
As a Lib Dem supporter, member and candidate in the county council elections this year even I can't see them winning here. But if they can beat UKIP and the Tories then that will maintain the momentum. It's far more important for UKIP. I've said for a long time that they are dead in the water...the LDs have been in this situation before and have recovered but that's because of their constituency level support and history rooted in their communities. UKIP don't have that..they have no organisation, no history nor do they have the membership to deliver a surprise.
> Foreign Policy (1) making the High Representative act like a true European Minister of Foreign Affairs > Defence (2) permanent structured cooperation in defence matters > Immigration: common asylum and legal migration and an EU wide "blue card" work permit for migration from outside the EU. Implementation held up by national "red tape" > EMU: strengthen the external projection of our monetary union
There is no question that the EU was (and very probably still is) heading towards full political federal union, and we are better off out.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
Add £1-2 per night to price of a central London hotel room, hypothocated to London museums. Redistribute the grant in a us to smaller museums nationwide.
Visiting museums is not the only reason to visit London.
Which month was it that Corbyn secured the nominations for his initial leadership bid? Just wondering about checking the threads on that date, seeing what we thought at the time.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
Add £1-2 per night to price of a central London hotel room, hypothocated to London museums. Redistribute the grant in a us to smaller museums nationwide.
Visiting museums is not the only reason to visit London.
Nor do only foreigners use London hotel rooms.
In France you don't pay the tax if you can produce a letter or somjething to show you are travelli8ng on business.
I can quite understand why Labour MPs with strong marketable skills/earning power over £65k are jumping ship - they've no prospects of ministerial office for 8yrs at least.
Labour have already lost in 2020.
JohnO made me think.
Let's say Balls comes back in (via a by-election), Corbyn is ousted and then Balls becomes Labour leader. He swiftly goes a bit old-Labour, ditches most of the identity politics, goes patriotic, pro-defence, pro-immigration control, but more economic protection and public services reforms that strongly appeal to the white working classes.
Then let's say May totally f*cks up, is totally outperformed by Balls politically, sours the milk with Trump, alienates everyone in the EU, and screws up Brexit, satisfying nobody, leading to a recession, and a real collapse in the currency.
It's not inconceivable the Tories then fail to get boundary change through, drop 15 seats to the LDs, and drop 40-50 seats to Balls, in which case we are in hung-parliament territory. And Nicola Sturgeon might have more tact in playing that card next time.
So very unlikely, but not impossible to have a Labour PM post GE2020.
Ed Balls is currently 38 on BF for next Labour leader. As I have him at 60 I wont be putting more in, but if he did run for Stoke, surely these odds will come down?
Ed Balls is currently 38 on BF for next Labour leader. As I have him at 60 I wont be putting more in, but if he did run for Stoke, surely these odds will come down?
> Foreign Policy (1) making the High Representative act like a true European Minister of Foreign Affairs > Defence (2) permanent structured cooperation in defence matters > Immigration: common asylum and legal migration and an EU wide "blue card" work permit for migration from outside the EU. Implementation held up by national "red tape" > EMU: strengthen the external projection of our monetary union
There is no question that the EU was (and very probably still is) heading towards full political federal union, and we are better off out.
Those first four priorities strongly contradict the fifth.
Which month was it that Corbyn secured the nominations for his initial leadership bid? Just wondering about checking the threads on that date, seeing what we thought at the time.
It's complete tosh. Stormont has no role in triggering Article 50, which is a reserved matter. Therefore, there's no substance to the challenge. N Ireland has MPs to represent its views on issues like this.
Ed Balls is currently 38 on BF for next Labour leader. As I have him at 60 I wont be putting more in, but if he did run for Stoke, surely these odds will come down?
I did tip him at 100/1 just before Strictly started.
If the next Labour leadership contest is solely between Ed Balls, Richard Burgon, and Diane Abbott I will be most delighted.
It's complete tosh. Stormont has no role in triggering Article 50, which is a reserved matter. Therefore, there's no substance to the challenge. N Ireland has MPs to represent its views on issues like this.
Mr. Eagles, reading the thread now. Guess which poster said this: "Mr. Eagles, is it asking for a list of reasons for Hannibal being the clear superior to the Queen of Bithynia?"
It's complete tosh. Stormont has no role in triggering Article 50, which is a reserved matter. Therefore, there's no substance to the challenge. N Ireland has MPs to represent its views on issues like this.
I think the other aspect to consider is the Good Friday Agreement and withdrawal from the ECHR would breach that.
I do know a Brexit supporting barrister who is really worried by that aspect.
Would Mrs May really want to be spoken in the same breath as the Real IRA
Mr. Eagles, reading the thread now. Guess which poster said this: "Mr. Eagles, is it asking for a list of reasons for Hannibal being the clear superior to the Queen of Bithynia?"
Edited extra bit: my initial thought wasn't quite cunning enough - "A few are getting a shade giddy over Corbyn."
Could have been worse a few days later you could have written a thread header tipping Jeremy Corbyn finish last in the Labour leadership contest.
Fortunately I did make decent money on the Labour leadership contest thanks to tipping Liz Kendall at 50/1 months prior, laying Burnham, and reading the runes about the YouGov poll before it was published.
Ed Balls is currently 38 on BF for next Labour leader. As I have him at 60 I wont be putting more in, but if he did run for Stoke, surely these odds will come down?
Would be single figures, probably favourite
Managed to get a fiver on at 300/1 in June so would be cheering him too.
Comments
Reasoning: More differential turnout from those who remain enthusiastic about Corbyn will occur in a parliamentary by-election than either in a council by-election (low turnout all around) or a general election (high turnout all around)
Result: Forcing by-elections might be a less good way of weakening Corbyn than is supposed, and present a falsely sunny picture to the Labour leadership. Likely decent wins in Stoke-on-Trent and Leigh. Copeland a slightly different case, the technical middle class and unionised workers most likely to be pro-Corbyn elsewhere likely also to be pro-nuclear here and thus more ambivalent, but sounds like NHS closures are a hot local issue here too.
More pertinently, people vote differently in different types of election, especially in mid-term. The Lib Dems' poll ratings will be the best guide to the party's vote share in Parliamentary elections.
P.S. - I hate it when someone puts the amorphous theory going around in my head into actual words and logical order.
Labour have already lost in 2020. They may well have already lost in 2025. How much of your life do you want to spend having pointless discussions and debates without ever having the chance to make a real decision?
There is always the possibility that Labour decide that they didn't win with Corbyn because he wasn't left wing enough, there is a precedent for this sort of behaviour
What they actually want is to give the government no choice but to lean more heavily on options outside the EU. Most of the more realistic things they demand are entirely achievable while remaining members of the EU, but they hope that Brexit will force the government to pursue them with more vigour.
No Infidel Tanks in Baghdad moment.
Longer term, I think that Labour are in a lot of trouble in Stoke.
(Though it would be in the interests of the person who was elected).
2005 and 2010 were Peak Lib Dem I think we can agree... they scored 47 and 43% in those years' Richmond Park Elections.. against Zac last year they got 49% (lab soft pedalling and no Green)
In Stoke 05 and 10 they got 18 and 21%. That, added to the fact it is a Leave rather than Remain area, makes me think they can get 2nd at best.
Have the Conservatives no chance at all? Or less than 8% chance???
UKIP +BNP was 12% in 2010.. that is big
Not top price on either, but I think the co-dependency makes up for it:
Doubles (x1)
1 . Labour (Copeland by-election British)
2 . Labour (Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election British)
1 line at £20.00
Total stake for this bet: £20.00
Potential return: £82.05
I'm sure there is a sizeable number of people who want to turn back the clock. The LDs were always a party of the unachievable ideal. It will take them a long time to recover from actually having been in government.
Let's say Balls comes back in (via a by-election), Corbyn is ousted and then Balls becomes Labour leader. He swiftly goes a bit old-Labour, ditches most of the identity politics, goes patriotic, pro-defence, pro-immigration control, but more economic protection and public services reforms that strongly appeal to the white working classes.
Then let's say May totally f*cks up, is totally outperformed by Balls politically, sours the milk with Trump, alienates everyone in the EU, and screws up Brexit, satisfying nobody, leading to a recession, and a real collapse in the currency.
It's not inconceivable the Tories then fail to get boundary change through, drop 15 seats to the LDs, and drop 40-50 seats to Balls, in which case we are in hung-parliament territory. And Nicola Sturgeon might have more tact in playing that card next time.
So very unlikely, but not impossible to have a Labour PM post GE2020.
Which is why Remainers should be careful what they wish for.
He failed abysmally, so why the f*ck is he still there?
One could feel that Balls is rather more Trump's sort of politician that May is as well, Balls is very pro-American, has had experience there both professionally and academically, and is something of a brash showman himself.
Presumably the Guardian reading classes would leave for the Lib Dems en-masse if this was the new Labour party line, but they might choke a bit on Farron's social conservatism.
Also even if May screws the pooch on BrExit we will be out in some shape of form by 2020, so the question is will the public see Balls and his new platform as the answer to the new world post-EU... and in this case one assumes the Tories will have hung May out to dry somewhen in 2019 if not before and someone else will already be in the saddle by election time.
https://twitter.com/bbcbreakfast/status/819801675116388354
Alec Muffett, an experienced security researcher who spoke to Gizmodo, the Guardian’s story is “major league fuckwittage.”
http://gizmodo.com/theres-no-security-backdoor-in-whatsapp-despite-report-1791158247
We absolutely debate charging everytime. So far we've decided not to (because our raison d'etre is to promote regional museums so we are driven by footfall to some extent). But it probably costs the foundation a couple of hundred thousand a year - we chose to spend the money in that day because we think it is beneficial.
But it's ludicrous to have a policy insisting on free entry (or, technically, making eligibility for public support dependent on not charging). It might be right for some museums and wrong for others - this shouldn't be a decision for central government. Changing that was one of Ed Vaisey's few intelligent thoughts - but Cameron threw him under a bus because of some luvvie whinging
The Guardian reading classes would vote tactically to get rid of The Tories. They'd probably like a Labour/SNP/LD coalition Government as they'd hope the LDs/SNP would force Balls to socially liberalise.
We'd probably get PR as a result and constitutional reform, which we probably need anyway, and it might be attractive to some voters to use the new Brexit powers for a bit more economic statism and subsidy.
In fact, there's an argument to say that - used well - the new Brexit powers could be an electoral saviour for Labour. For its return to power at least.
If May is true to her word and the UK leaves the Single Market, ditches the CJEU and we end up pay rather little to the EU, and nothing in the medium term, then UKIP is dead in the water.
If it turns out to be a load of smoke and mirrors and bullshit, and May tries to sell the country some sort of associate membership which is EU or EEA in all but name, and critically offers people nothing of freedom of movement, or the ECJ, then the kippers will be well over 20% by the next election.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/819942771163275264
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2017/01/13/green-party-to-stand-in-copeland-by-election/?utm_content=bufferf58de&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Might even lose their deposit.
Although, I guess not in a way he envisaged.
Lead balloon.
But he was 'elected' on a platform to reform our membership to keep us in, and he did a truly f*cking shit job.
He should have had the decency to resign. The fact he hasn't - and that his resignation hasn't even been demanded - is very telling about the sort of organisation the EU is.
"A fifth and last priority for me as Commission President will be to give an answer to the British question. No reasonable politician can ignore the fact that, during the next five years, we will have to find solutions for the political concerns of the United Kingdom. We have to do this if we want to keep the UK within the European Union – which I would like to do as Commission President. As Commission President, I will work for a fair deal with Britain. A deal that accepts the specificities of the UK in the EU, while allowing the Eurozone to integrate further. The UK will need to understand that in the Eurozone, we need more Europe, not less. On the other hand, the other EU countries will have to accept that the UK will never participate in the euro, even if we may regret this. We have to accept that the UK will not become a member of the Schengen area. And I am also ready to accept that the UK will stay outside new EU institutions such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, meant to improve the fight against fraud in the EU, but clearly rejected by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have to respect such clear positions of the British Parliament, based on the British “opt out” Protocol. David Cameron has recently written down a number of further key demands in an article published in the Daily Telegraph. As Commission President, I will be ready to talk to him about these demands in a fair and reasonable manner. My red line in such talks would be the integrity of the single market and its four freedoms; and the possibility to have more Europe within the Eurozone to strengthen the single currency shared so far by 18 and soon by 19 Member States. But I have the impression that this is as important for Britain as it will be for the next President of the Commission. "
Contrast with Richmond where there was no pro-LHR expansion candidate.
> Foreign Policy (1) making the High Representative act like a true European Minister of Foreign Affairs
> Defence (2) permanent structured cooperation in defence matters
> Immigration: common asylum and legal migration and an EU wide "blue card" work permit for migration from outside the EU. Implementation held up by national "red tape"
> EMU: strengthen the external projection of our monetary union
There is no question that the EU was (and very probably still is) heading towards full political federal union, and we are better off out.
Visiting museums is not the only reason to visit London.
Nor do only foreigners use London hotel rooms.
https://twitter.com/SiobhanFenton/status/819947194648248320
Depends if she needs approval from NI/Scotland/Wales for A50.
If she doesn't, then it makes no difference.
If she does, civil war begins....
Mr. Hopkins, the suggestion devolved administrations have a veto over foreign policy would be rancid judicial meddling in politics.
If the next Labour leadership contest is solely between Ed Balls, Richard Burgon, and Diane Abbott I will be most delighted.
"Mr. Eagles, is it asking for a list of reasons for Hannibal being the clear superior to the Queen of Bithynia?"
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/15/it-is-jez-we-can-as-corbyn-makes-it-on-to-the-labour-leadership-ballot/
Edited extra bit: my initial thought wasn't quite cunning enough - "A few are getting a shade giddy over Corbyn."
I do know a Brexit supporting barrister who is really worried by that aspect.
Would Mrs May really want to be spoken in the same breath as the Real IRA
Fortunately I did make decent money on the Labour leadership contest thanks to tipping Liz Kendall at 50/1 months prior, laying Burnham, and reading the runes about the YouGov poll before it was published.
Good for the Labour Party as well