Undefined discussion subject.

Sandpit said:

Tykejohnno said:

Don't think it's been mentioned yet but do we think the lib dems can retake bradford east with David Ward ?

If the Lib Dems let David Ward stand again, it won't just be Labour that stand accused of institutional antisemitism.

It looks like he's the candidate for the lib dems.

malcolmg said:

Roger said:

Cont....another seat which I know well is Edinburgh South. I can't find the odds but I'd be very surprised if Labour don't hold it. Clearly a target for Uncle Tom Cobbley and all but a very well known and popular MP should see it bucking the trend and remaining the the last Labour bastion in Scotland

LOL, I doubt your family connection has clouded your judgement Roger.

Ha! Don't they always? I bet Kim Kardashian thought OJ was innocent

Might be worth keeping a little eye out for what happens in Islington South. On the face of it Emily Thornberry has a very safe seat these days, but it wasn't always so.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2017-lib-dem-candidate-terry-stacy-says-backing-brexit-could-cost-emily-thornberry-islington-south-1-4979622

That said, Emily could just have got a lucky break:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2017-terry-stacy-steps-down-as-lib-dem-candidate-for-islington-south-and-finsbury-1-4984115

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

YBarddCwsc said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

YBarddCwsc said:

hamiltonace said:

hamiltonace said:

MarqueeMark said:

hamiltonace said:

Apologies I mean Oxford west and Abingdon to be precise

Just the nine and a half thousand majority to overcome.....

You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible

You have missed off the 4k UKIP vote. You need to bung at least half of that on Nicola Blackwood’s total.

The remaining Labour vote in OXWAB is pretty unsqueezable. Look at how it hasn’t changed much, 7k (2015), 6k (2010), 8k (2005), 9k (2001), 12k (1997), 8k (1992). etc. There are some people in OXWAB who want to vote Labour, no matter what, even though their vote is “wasted”.

Close miss, I think.

I think you're too casually assuming:

1. That UKIP voters are basically all borrowed Tories - assuming their vote halves in Oxford (say) a plurality will go Tory, but they won't get a +2K gain.

2. That someone who stuck with Blair and Brown despite the squeeze messages in earlier elections faces the same calculation with Corbyn at the helm. Also, that voting tactically for the Lib Dems in a seat with quite a lot of university voters is as problematic as 2015.

Having said that, I do actually agree it will be tight and my head says narrow miss.

I could easily believe Nicola’s majority will be less than 1k. But, we’re in agreement -- the Tories are favourites here.

As regards UKIP, will there be a candidate?

As regards squeezing Labour, I think many people shift voters from Lab to LD columns without really thinking. There are people who are just tribally, loyally Labour (they are largely not represented on pb.com).

Labour’s vote has been about 8k in OXWAB for thirty years -- way back to Foot in 1983. To even get it to down to 6k will be a lot of work for the LDs.

In my opinion (we’ll see in the locals), Cambridge is equally problematic. The LibDems have been in significant retreat on Cambridge Council in recent years, and without wishing to become too Seniorish, I don’t think that bodes well.

I'd expect Nicola Blackwood to hold it fairly easily. I'd see her majority as being more like 5k.

If the LibDems are putting resources into seats with a near 10k majority, you have to ask some big questions about their strategy for this election....

If she was massively unpopular, or there was some very big local issue that favoured the Lib Dems, it would make sense, but otherwise, I wouldn't treat it as a serious target.

Alistair said:

I've just had one idle thought about Scotland. What if we are about to see a 2007-2010 result where dramatic Ganges in Holyrood voting are completely not reflected in Westminster voting?

The Ganges in Holyrood would be dramatic, no doubt.....

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/855688138802548736

Blair and Rentoul are wrong. TMay does not have a reliable majority for a soft Brexit deal in the current Parliament. No Prime Minister ever likes being dependent on the votes of the Opposition, since if they can screw you they will (as is their job).

Ed Miliband on Syria is a good example of how utterly unreliable they can be.

MarqueeMark said:

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

There haven't been any local elections in Cambridge since Brexit. Brexit is a key contributor to Labour's woes (which is why blaming it all on Corbyn always was missing much of the point) and Labours national poll ratings have been on the slide ever since.

I agree Brexit is a key component of their difficulties.

Of course, in Cambridge, it is the Eastern wards that were for Brexit, and the University wards for Remain. Zeichner is so ultra-Remain that he out-libdems the LibDem.

Can he keep Labour’s strange coalition together?

I doubt if Kings Hedges or Abbey are going to vote for Huppert. So, Huppert has to convert Remainer Labourites to Remainer LibDems in the face of a vociferous Remainer Labour MP.

Or Huppert has to hope that enough of the Leavers in the East of city don’t turn out for ultra-Remainer Zeichner?

Good background. Just what a betting site needs!

The first election leaflet I ever designed was for Kings Hedges ward!

The last point is the key one - if Cambridge's estates don't turn out for Corbyn and the university and remainer south and western areas turn out for the LibDems, Huppert will be fine. It could be an almost unique case of a rise in the Tory vote letting the LibDems in.....

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

So you can safely assume half the Labour vote will go to the Lib Dems but you can't assume half the UKIP vote will go to the Tories?

If think only one of those two is correct.

I didn't anywhere say half the Labour vote would go Lib Dem.

No you didn't but @hamiltonace did earlier in that chat tree to explain how the seat could be vulnerable: You need half the labour vote which gives you 4K and then say there are 10k of Tory remainers 30% of them to switch. Not impossible

If half of the Labour vote doesn't go to the Lib Dems then you wouldn't need half the UKIP vote to go to the Tories since the existing 9k majority would still be there.

IanB2 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.

The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.

The 0.7 pisses people way more than it should, but it insulates to some degree the uncaring Tory attack. Pensioners need to accept they get a good enough deal and all of us need to grow up and either accept massive spending cuts, which we know won't happen as even the Tories pushed welfare as far as they coukd, or accept tax rises.

Tmays lead is the best chance for a leader to be close to honest with the electorate and not be punished for it, and she must take it.

Tax rises have gone as far as is politically feasible too. Governments will just have to keep their spending at about 37% of GDP.

With a big majority and mandate, no opposition, and no 'no tax rise' promise, of course it is feasible. And there are plenty of ways significant amounts can be raised (for example by ceasing reliefs on pensions, interest payments, ISAs) and from NI without having to push the headline rate up.

Of course there will be a backlash (particularly if the economy and Brexit are heading south at the same time, both quite likely) but May will have five years, probably unpopular by then anyway and it'll be the 1980s all over again. That is probably when the LD's real opportunity arrives, provided they can do well enough this time to be positioned for it.

Yes, if they can get back strong second places, they have more to work with.

On the 0.7% seeing the reaction to it I think I was right it is a lightning rod to draw away criticism, but even if it it is terrible, is it really so terrible as to cost lots of votes? UKIP will hope so, but set aside everything good about the Tory platform us it so bad to overcome that?

Sandpit said:

Tykejohnno said:

Sandpit said:

Tykejohnno said:

Don't think it's been mentioned yet but do we think the lib dems can retake bradford east with David Ward ?

If the Lib Dems let David Ward stand again, it won't just be Labour that stand accused of institutional antisemitism.

It looks like he's the candidate for the lib dems.

Not a good look. I know it's Bradford, and the electorate there might be more sympathetic to his views than most, but he's the LDs Ken Livingstone.

Guido has a whole section about him, including a complaint from the Israeli ambassador.
https://order-order.com/people/david-ward/

Well my MP is Naz Shah ;-)

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

Even if Labour are crushed, Jezza won't quit.

Awesome.

I dont believe that. Unless labour outperform even my prediction of near 200 seats, even he would not hold on in that situation. Staying on would not help recovery, and we all mock the labour moderates, but even they would move to shift him again if they lose, and, finally, would quit if he doesn't. Corbyn could have left labour decades ago, do the brand is clearly important to him, he wo t want it destroyed.

Len and Seamus quaffing champagne after yesterday's tight Unite election next door to Len's Unite-bought flat in London is an image for the ages. That is an absolute killer. It will infuriate all but the committed hard left. And, once again, it is important to remember Corbyn's support base has never been homogenous - it is made up of very different kinds of people.

One of two things will happen post-election:

1. Corbyn will go after losing a leadership election.

2. Corbyn will say after winning a leadership election and Labour will split.

May did Labour moderates a huge favour by calling the election. Those that get back into the Commons get back in with five years of job security. They also know that if he does win another leadership election they will be deselected for the next GE. They now have absolutely nothing to lose.

I expect 1 to happen. I would kind of like 2 to happen, though. Labour can never be anything more than an uncomfortable holding coalition. Being forced to bite the bullet and go for something new and more cohesive with time to build looks like a decent option to me.

Fangsy said:

I absolutely concur with the reasoning that LibDem gains are going to be tougher to find than the current markets imply. But what if Lab totally - and I mean totally - collapses? [The Tories may have something devastating from JC's past, perhaps, or he might have a series of horrendous interviews]. In those circumstances anti-Tory voters might easily vote yellow just because there is no alternative for them.

Yes, that's the risk. I'm expecting the LDs to pick up a handful from the Tories in W London, Bath, Bristol etc but the unknown is the LD/Lab seats.

A proper collapse in the Labour vote (say to 20%) almost certainly puts the LDs second and liable to make considerable gains from the reds, especially in university towns and London. Polling last week showed that the general public doesnt know as much about Corbyn's past associations as we do on here - and the Tories are going to go hard on him being the IRA's friend in the midlands marginals.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

kle4 said:

Corbyn could have left labour decades ago, do the brand is clearly important to him, he wo t want it destroyed.

The brand is worth £70k a year to him and has been (inflation adjusted) for more than three decades. Had he left Labour at any point, he'd have been jobless basically. It's not a visceral love of the Party.

He seems very happy on protest marches and not particularly concerned with money, I am sure he could have got jobs working for greenpeace or some anti nuclear group or something.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

Sandpit said:

Fangsy said:

I absolutely concur with the reasoning that LibDem gains are going to be tougher to find than the current markets imply. But what if Lab totally - and I mean totally - collapses? [The Tories may have something devastating from JC's past, perhaps, or he might have a series of horrendous interviews]. In those circumstances anti-Tory voters might easily vote yellow just because there is no alternative for them.

Yes, that's the risk. I'm expecting the LDs to pick up a handful from the Tories in W London, Bath, Bristol etc but the unknown is the LD/Lab seats.

A proper collapse in the Labour vote (say to 20%) almost certainly puts the LDs second and liable to make considerable gains from the reds, especially in university towns and London. Polling last week showed that the general public doesnt know as much about Corbyn's past associations as we do on here - and the Tories are going to go hard on him being the IRA's friend in the midlands marginals.

The general public do t know specifics but if polling is right don't like him at all, and yet labour still get mid 20s. Finding out more things to dislike I can't see driving them below 20, though perhaps confirm the intention of his haters to stay at home.

kle4 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Alistair said:

I've just had one idle thought about Scotland. What if we are about to see a 2007-2010 result where dramatic Ganges in Holyrood voting are completely not reflected in Westminster voting?

Possible, but I guess it is the incumbency effect. Changes in Holyrood did not percolate through to well dug-in Labour and LibDem seats at Westminster because the MPs had been there for 10, 20 or 30 years.

So, have the SNP had enough time to dig in their MPs so there is a significant incumbency effect? Doubtful. I think the expectation of rather modest SNP losses is right.

I think the snp wave of support is still riding very high. How modest is modest losses? I'm thinking no more than 2-3.

My thinking is 4 guaranteed losses: D&G; BRS, Ed West; Fife NE.

Anything else would be due to very low turnout or hugely motivated differential turn out or a massive candidate clanger

Mr. Thompson, I agree. Also not great for people earning little but trying their best to save.

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

You really think that the uk has no choice but to accept whatever the eu say, dont you? They do have the stronger hand, but it's still a negotiation, even those with strong hands do not get to dictate everything.

Indeed, which is why the PM is right to retain her strong cards despite the protests.

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Good piece from Alastair to which I would only add 2 points.

Firstly, the Lib Dem strength was localism, based on an active councillor base, Focus leaflets and local issues. During the Coalition years this base was severely eroded in successive elections making them much weaker for any immediate come back.

Secondly, the reason we were all told that the Lib Dems would not be facing wipeout in 2015 was incumbency and that local base. In these target seats they don't have incumbency either anymore. Some familiar faces with local followings, such as Uncle Vince, have decided to retread the boards but that is not the same as having the benefit of surgeries and local press over an extended period, let alone the money that MPs get to support their office and work for constituents. Recovering these seats is not going to be easy.

So what could change this? Basically, the Lib Dems need a significant lift in the polls reversing the adverse swing they currently face with the Tories. In my view this means that they need to go after Labour in a big way. Not necessarily in Labour seats, as Alastair points out there are relatively few Labour/Lib Dem marginal within credible reach, but generally in the media and in campaigning.

They could do worse than reprise Ruth Davidson's tactics in 2016. This country needs an opposition to test and challenge and we are it. Untrammelled power is not good for the country and does not lead to good government. Such a message is focussed at Labour and their ineptitude but will resonate in Tory marginals too. And Labour is such an easy target. You just can't miss at the moment.

David , you have to be joking , what do the Conservatives test in Scotland, absolutely nothing. It is the same whine every week.

I don't see how the LDs could repeat the Ruth Davidson no surrender to a referendum vote for Ruth Davidson no we aren't mentioning Conservatives on our leaflets vote for Ruth Davidson on the regional list Ruth Davidson look at me I'm on a cow party approach.

williamglenn said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

Are you really going to keep this up for 2 years?

Pickles, a big loss.

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

Fishing said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.

It's idiotic and anti-Conservative. Foreign aid should be a matter of individual conscience, not state compulsion. There are any number of perfectly good charities in this area to give one's money to. I do not see why the state needs to get involved at all.

And that's aside from the question of how much of our aid budget is wasted, and whether the money could be better spent at home.

I was going to go out canvassing for the Conservatives today, but I don't think I'll bother, despite being in a tight Tory/Labour marginal.

Because state aid is a strategic geo political tool. Build schools and provide teachers with a pro British view point and you raise a generation of children to think favourably to us rather than suicide bomb us.

And who are less likely to come here as refugees or asylum seekers. God knows how bad the Syrian refugee problem would have got without the money Cameron pumped into camps in the Middle East.

Indeed, there are useful things you can do with overseas aid. But I dislike the 0.7% commitment because it means money gets spent on some dubious projects simply to meet the commitment.

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

Are you really going to keep this up for 2 years?

I think forever is more likely to be honest

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

Fishing said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.

It's idiotic and anti-Conservative. Foreign aid should be a matter of individual conscience, not state compulsion. There are any number of perfectly good charities in this area to give one's money to. I do not see why the state needs to get involved at all.

And that's aside from the question of how much of our aid budget is wasted, and whether the money could be better spent at home.

I was going to go out canvassing for the Conservatives today, but I don't think I'll bother, despite being in a tight Tory/Labour marginal.

Because state aid is a strategic geo political tool. Build schools and provide teachers with a pro British view point and you raise a generation of children to think favourably to us rather than suicide bomb us.

And who are less likely to come here as refugees or asylum seekers. God knows how bad the Syrian refugee problem would have got without the money Cameron pumped into camps in the Middle East.

Indeed, there are useful things you can do with overseas aid. But I dislike the 0.7% commitment because it means money gets spent on some dubious projects simply to meet the commitment.

That's a fair point. I would have no problem with emergency funds being built up in years where there are fewer disasters than usual.

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

Are you really going to keep this up for 2 years?

More like 25 years. He'll be like one of those Japanese soldiers on remote islands fighting WWII, long after it had ended.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

Are you really going to keep this up for 2 years?

I think forever is more likely to be honest

You may be right. It's a tad dull.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theresa May's decision on foreign aid is absolutely correct and she again demonstrates her vision for a global UK on leaving the EU. It may comfort UKIP to divert foreign aid to the UK but just think how that would look abroad. The enemies of the UK, and there are many in the EU and the remainers would paint Theresa May as just another 'Little Englander'

She will cut out the nonsense aid but expect her to campaign about all the good we do and the prestige in the World it bestows on us.

Yes, I think this is the point (hopefully you're right about cutting out the crap -Priti Patel certainly would do that if allowed I think), at the moment, the UK simply can't afford 'the optics' of cutting overseas aid, whether it is justified or not.

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

Are you really going to keep this up for 2 years?

I hope he does. It's destroyed 42 years of history. What's a mere 2 years of mourning?

Sandpit said:

An election that returns her government with a significantly raised majority means that the EU side of the negotiations know she will have the clear support of her own Parliament for whatever is her stance. That gives her a much stronger position in the negotiations - which in theory makes the bad deal less likely.

The idea that what happens in the UK Parliament matters a jot to the EU is another Brexiteer fantasy that is about to be dashed.

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/855699205947625473

Looks like useless Liz is for the chop. Good news!

Scott_P said:

kle4 said:

I dont believe that. Unless labour outperform even my prediction of near 200 seats, even he would not hold on in that situation. Staying on would not help recovery, and we all mock the labour moderates, but even they would move to shift him again if they lose, and, finally, would quit if he doesn't. Corbyn could have left labour decades ago, do the brand is clearly important to him, he wo t want it destroyed.

The Times understands that two post-election options have been floated, designed to give the left the maximum chance of continuing to dominate the party.

One allows for Mr Corbyn to try to remain in post. In the event of a bad defeat, one plan would be for Mr Corbyn to suggest all Labour MPs must share the blame. He would then invite anyone to make a leadership challenge. Under rules confirmed by the High Court last year, Mr Corbyn would automatically appear on the ballot, along with anyone who gets nominations from 20 per cent of MPs and MEPs.

Labour voters already think there is a low chance of the party winning the election, so opponents of Mr Corbyn fear that a bruising election defeat may not weaken his support among the Labour membership sufficiently to oust him. In a YouGov poll of Labour members last month, before the early election was called, nearly two thirds thought that Mr Corbyn was unlikely ever to become prime minister but nevertheless nearly half said that they would continue to vote for him.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/871dfaea-26ca-11e7-bbe5-53dfe0d91782

I know that was reported, but I don't believe they do it for the reasons I outlined.

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Choose, it's a maintenance of the 0.7% promise, but I agree. I also think it's damned foolish.

The Conservatives have a healthy lead but that doesn't mean it's smart politics to promise £13bn overseas aid spending whilst at the same time talking about ending a promise to pensioners, and hinting at increasing taxes.

The 0.7 pisses people way more than it should, but it insulates to some degree the uncaring Tory attack. Pensioners need to accept they get a good enough deal and all of us need to grow up and either accept massive spending cuts, which we know won't happen as even the Tories pushed welfare as far as they coukd, or accept tax rises.

Tmays lead is the best chance for a leader to be close to honest with the electorate and not be punished for it, and she must take it.

Tax rises have gone as far as is politically feasible too. Governments will just have to keep their spending at about 37% of GDP.

With a big majority and mandate, no opposition, and no 'no tax rise' promise, of course it is feasible. And there are plenty of ways significant amounts can be raised (for example by ceasing reliefs on pensions, interest payments, ISAs) and from NI without having to push the headline rate up.

Of course there will be a backlash (particularly if the economy and Brexit are heading south at the same time, both quite likely) but May will have five years, probably unpopular by then anyway and it'll be the 1980s all over again. That is probably when the LD's real opportunity arrives, provided they can do well enough this time to be positioned for it.

So your solution is to hammer pension savers, hammer savers on interest and to again hammer savers who use ISAs.

When this nation's biggest problem is not enough getting saved and too much getting borrowed, is that seriously your great idea? Let's slash our puny savings ratio even more?

You didn't ask for my proposals and I wasn't offering them. I was simply challenging your assertion that it isn't feasible to push up taxes by contesting your assumptions and offering some examples of things Mrs May might do. With all the pressures on health and elsewhere the scope for reducing spending further is near exhausted; inflation, negative interest rates and pushing up the tax take are the remaining options.

Edit/sorry, not 'your', the OP.

Scott_P said:

Sandpit said:

An election that returns her government with a significantly raised majority means that the EU side of the negotiations know she will have the clear support of her own Parliament for whatever is her stance. That gives her a much stronger position in the negotiations - which in theory makes the bad deal less likely.

The idea that what happens in the UK Parliament matters a jot to the EU is another Brexiteer fantasy that is about to be dashed.

That doesn't even make sense - what happens in any foreign elections matters to the EU as it matters to us. Some will matter more than others, but the idea that the outcome of an election in another country has no relevance to them would be to suggest they pay no attention to how other countries vote, which would be silly more than anything else.

This isn't a 'The UK is super important' or 'The EU is so much more important they don't care about the UK' issue, its just common sense that an election outcome has potential to affect things to some degree.

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Good article Mr Meeks. Personally I think the LDs will get around 18-20 seats in affluent Remain areas in Southwest London and seats like Lewes and Bristol West, Hampstead and Cambridge as well as a handful in the Southwest they used to hold like Bath, Thornbury and Yate and Truro and 2 from the SNP, Edinburgh West (which they hold at Holyrood) and East Dunbartonshire with Jo Swinson restanding. However I think they could lose Leave voting North Norfolk and Carshalton and Wallington to the Tories. That would take them back above their 2015 total and where the Liberals were from 1945 to 1979 but still below the SDP/LD totals from 1983 to 2010

Bristol west still loves Corbyn, I believe.

Heard the Bristol West MP Thangam Debbonaire on Any Questions yesterday (never heard of her before) - forceful, lucid and idealistic. An interesting future prospect.

Left the shadow cabinet under a bit of a cloud, as many do, I understand, but as Corbyn's stil pretty popular there and she is apparently not without talent, they should hold pretty confortably I'd say.

Gadfly said:

Barnesian said:

Gadfly said:

The LibDem’s promised ‘second referendum’ would in fact be a vote on the deal struck with the EU.

Such a vote would incentivise the EU to offer Britain a lousy deal in the hope that this would be rejected.

That does not however necessarily equate to our remaining in the EU and could in fact result in leaving without a deal.

Either way, the country could lose out as a consequence of these shenanigans.

The country would gain if the EU offered us a lousy deal, it was put to the people in a referendum (accept this lousy deal as the best on offer or stay in), and the people vote to stay in. That would be a great outcome for the country and we could put this Brexit nonsense behind us. Brexit would be remembered in years to come as a moment of madness, thankfully recovered.

Article 50 has now been triggered and nobody knows whether it can be revoked. As a consequence of this, nobody knows whether rejecting the deal would entail Britain staying in the EU or leaving without a deal. The LibDem policy simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Britain can backtrack on its decision to leave the European Union if it wishes, according to EU lawmakers.
https://www.rt.com/uk/382677-eu-brexit-referendum-vote/

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

Fishing said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.

It's idiotic and anti-Conservative. Foreign aid should be a matter of individual conscience, not state compulsion. There are any number of perfectly good charities in this area to give one's money to. I do not see why the state needs to get involved at all.

And that's aside from the question of how much of our aid budget is wasted, and whether the money could be better spent at home.

I was going to go out canvassing for the Conservatives today, but I don't think I'll bother, despite being in a tight Tory/Labour marginal.

Because state aid is a strategic geo political tool. Build schools and provide teachers with a pro British view point and you raise a generation of children to think favourably to us rather than suicide bomb us.

And who are less likely to come here as refugees or asylum seekers. God knows how bad the Syrian refugee problem would have got without the money Cameron pumped into camps in the Middle East.

Yes, to me the right way to go about it is to keep the target (it's an international goal) but increase the scope of what we can include in it by allowing crossover with defence e.g. peacekeepers. We should also make sure as much of the money as possible goes to British organisations rather than lining the pockets of foreign governments, while stating clear goals for our money such as education and training.

David Cameron was completely right about how to deal with Syrian refugees, Angela Merkel completely wrong.

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Good article Mr Meeks. Personally I think the LDs will get around 18-20 seats in affluent Remain areas in Southwest London and seats like Lewes and Bristol West, Hampstead and Cambridge as well as a handful in the Southwest they used to hold like Bath, Thornbury and Yate and Truro and 2 from the SNP, Edinburgh West (which they hold at Holyrood) and East Dunbartonshire with Jo Swinson restanding. However I think they could lose Leave voting North Norfolk and Carshalton and Wallington to the Tories. That would take them back above their 2015 total and where the Liberals were from 1945 to 1979 but still below the SDP/LD totals from 1983 to 2010

Bristol west still loves Corbyn, I believe.

Heard the Bristol West MP Thangam Debbonaire on Any Questions yesterday (never heard of her before) - forceful, lucid and idealistic. An interesting future prospect.

Left the shadow cabinet under a bit of a cloud, as many do, I understand, but as Corbyn's stil pretty popular there and she is apparently not without talent, they should hold pretty confortably I'd say.

Hope not, I have a £5 on the Greens!

Reading the comments down thread about Sunderland being a prompt to manage bets... given that it's only two years since its baseline was set, shouldn't the BBC exit poll be even more reliable this time than it has been for the past few GEs?

P.s. Another advantage of the short time between GEs: PB hasn't changed platforms and so all the posts from GE2015 can be read in full... 10:00pm on the night of the election is a cracker.

Edited for rogue apostrophe

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

Fishing said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's sensible: DfID does a heck of a lot of good, and it's a shame you don't see that.

It's idiotic and anti-Conservative. Foreign aid should be a matter of individual conscience, not state compulsion. There are any number of perfectly good charities in this area to give one's money to. I do not see why the state needs to get involved at all.

And that's aside from the question of how much of our aid budget is wasted, and whether the money could be better spent at home.

I was going to go out canvassing for the Conservatives today, but I don't think I'll bother, despite being in a tight Tory/Labour marginal.

Because state aid is a strategic geo political tool. Build schools and provide teachers with a pro British view point and you raise a generation of children to think favourably to us rather than suicide bomb us.

And who are less likely to come here as refugees or asylum seekers. God knows how bad the Syrian refugee problem would have got without the money Cameron pumped into camps in the Middle East.

Indeed, there are useful things you can do with overseas aid. But I dislike the 0.7% commitment because it means money gets spent on some dubious projects simply to meet the commitment.

That's a fair point. I would have no problem with emergency funds being built up in years where there are fewer disasters than usual.

Yes. If there is to be a target like that, perhaps it should be judged across 5 years (if not already) - so you build up if no worthy projects to meet a single year commitment. Still the danger of needing to splurge at the end to meet commitment, but much better chance of worthy projects emerging across 5 rather than 1.

Staggers comment on Unite election:

"Ian Allinson, running to McCluskey’s left, did surprisingly well with 17,143 votes."

I'm sorry, but is such a position actually possible?

Scott_P said:

Sandpit said:

An election that returns her government with a significantly raised majority means that the EU side of the negotiations know she will have the clear support of her own Parliament for whatever is her stance. That gives her a much stronger position in the negotiations - which in theory makes the bad deal less likely.

The idea that what happens in the UK Parliament matters a jot to the EU is another Brexiteer fantasy that is about to be dashed.

Disagree completely. Their option to divide and rule just went away if she's got a solid majority behind her. A number of EU countries are desperate to ensure continued trade with UK, no matter what the attitude of Junker and the Eurocrats - a serious split on their side of the negotiating table is much more likely.

foxinsoxuk said:

ThomasNashe said:

From my purely 'out of touch with real people', metropolitan, bien-pensant perspective, I and most people I know intend to switch from Lab to LD. It's why I think Chestnut(?)'s assertion that Corbyn is going to do well in London is woefully off the mark.

I think Corbyn will particularly collapse in London. The combination of annoyed remainers and antipathy to higher taxes is going to be particularly toxic in West London. The East will see the UKIP switchers to the Tories.

I know two Labour Remain-ers from Jeremy's own seat, who were incredibly enthused when he became leader. They were sick of Tory-lite and wanted a genuine socialist.

They will both be voting LibDem as proxy Remain votes. (They were particularly incensed by the way that Jeremy didn't appear to campaign for Remain during the referendum.)

Now, it's anecdote, anecdote, anecdote. But given the LibDems tend to rise in the polls during campaigns as they get more coverage. (And given coverage of Corbyn is likely to be good for the LibDems.) Plus the boost they'll get from coming second in terms of seats and votes in the English council elections next month, I would expect them to end up on perhaps 15% of the vote.

That'd be decent progress from the 8% last time, a near doubling of their vote share. It would likely mean there was no Con-LibDem swing to speak of, and would mean there would likely be gains, albeit modest ones. But as Alistair points out, there aren't that many seats that the LibDems can easily gain.

Let's assume they lose Richmond (it was a 20,000 Conservative majority last time). That takes them back to eight. I don't buy the LibDems lose Southport meme, as the party did extremely well in the locals there last year (as in, their vote share increased substantially). But North Norfolk, which voted Leave, looks vulnerable. Let's assume they lose one of their existing seats to the Conservatives (or Plaid, although that's more remote).

That means they start on 7. What can they reasonably expect to gain? I'd argue two Scottish seats look well within reach; Cambridge must surely be a 'gimme' irrespective of the new Labour MP's personal vote (personal votes didn't save Julian last time); Twickenham and Bath are the most likely gains from the Conservatives. And then there's Southwark (50/50), Hornsey & Wood Green (25% chance at best), Cardiff Central (75%). Beyond that it's really tough.

The path to 15 or 16 seats looks achievable. The path to north of 20 is very tough. Sure, it could happen in the event of a total Labour meltdown. Or if Unionist tactical voting in Scotland really ramps up. But Alistair's analysis is surely right: sell the LibDem seats below 20.

logical_song said:

Gadfly said:

Barnesian said:

Gadfly said:

The LibDem’s promised ‘second referendum’ would in fact be a vote on the deal struck with the EU.

Such a vote would incentivise the EU to offer Britain a lousy deal in the hope that this would be rejected.

That does not however necessarily equate to our remaining in the EU and could in fact result in leaving without a deal.

Either way, the country could lose out as a consequence of these shenanigans.

The country would gain if the EU offered us a lousy deal, it was put to the people in a referendum (accept this lousy deal as the best on offer or stay in), and the people vote to stay in. That would be a great outcome for the country and we could put this Brexit nonsense behind us. Brexit would be remembered in years to come as a moment of madness, thankfully recovered.

Article 50 has now been triggered and nobody knows whether it can be revoked. As a consequence of this, nobody knows whether rejecting the deal would entail Britain staying in the EU or leaving without a deal. The LibDem policy simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Britain can backtrack on its decision to leave the European Union if it wishes, according to EU lawmakers.
https://www.rt.com/uk/382677-eu-brexit-referendum-vote/

Only hypothetical of course, but it would be an amusing counter factual for the UK to revoke article 50, and UKIP challenged it in the ECJ, who ruled it was not revocable.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ToryJim said:

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/855699205947625473

Looks like useless Liz is for the chop. Good news!

She has been hopeless and needs to go. The only other Minister that must be under threat is Chris Grayling who has been dreadful in transport. The other move TM could do is retire Jeremy Hunt and appoint Sarah Wollaston in Health

You expect another Con-LibDem coalition?

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-rebuff-berlin-shows-europeans-030002379.html

The U.K. “is in a very weak bargaining position anyway,” Schmieding said. Victory for May’s Conservatives in the June 8 election “gives her a strong hand in selling to the domestic audience in the U.K. whatever she wants to sell, but it does not give her any advantage in selling in Poland or in Romania or in France or Germany,” he said. “Brexit will mostly be shaped by what the EU-27 is ready to offer, and Theresa May will just have to accept that.”

You really think that the uk has no choice but to accept whatever the eu say, dont you? They do have the stronger hand, but it's still a negotiation, even those with strong hands do not get to dictate everything.

They will dictate the main points, we will be able to argue over detail, It will essentially be take it or leave it. And that will be the choice. The same thing applies to any trade deals we may end up "negotiating". Our hand is exceptionally weak because the only weapons we have are ones that will hurt us more than they hurt the people across the table.