Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
Like the 'bedroom tax' it is only a meme in areas that are unlikely to swing Tory, amongst those who like to moan about Tories. Many JAMs will be pleased that they don't have to spend their life savings so that Mr Richbags can have subsidelised care within his expensive house....
This policy will hurt a lot of people especially in the south east and London. How will it help anyone? Is she planning on giving benefits to the poor to pay for social care? No she is just taking. It will be deeply unpopular and will be changed in governmnt.
"A recent poll in Germany and other EU countries showed that eight in 10 people thought that the interests of the EU should be more important during negotiations than keeping intact economic ties to the UK."
The next 2 and a half weeks i expect to see an absolute blitzkrieg on Corbyn and the Tories relentlessly banging on about leadership. With the end result back where we started.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
PS My lefty friend is also hopeful that Corbyn will retire, immediately after a defeat, and be replaced by someone sensible and moderate. I pointed out that moderate lefties like him, returning to Labour to prevent a Tory landslide, are paradoxically guaranteeing that Corbyn will stay on, after a decent result.
He hadn't thought of that: he winced at the idea.
So he might change his mind, again.
I don't know why they didn't just keep hammering Corbyn and Brexit and issue a manifesto with just a few key (and vague) pledges.
Cameron made the same mistake in 2010 when instead of keeping the focus on Brown and the economy he got side-tracked with that big society rubbish.
Was probably the difference between a hung parliament and an overall majority.
Theresa's mistake will probably be the difference between a workable majority 40-50 and what could've been a landslide.
So with no deal, how does Mrs May deliver the improvements to living standards she is promising and the elimination of the deficit within eight years? A cynic might conclude she is making promises she knows she cannot keep in the hope of being able to pin the blame for failure on the European Union. Surely not.
A cynic, or more likely a partisan supporter of an opposition party, might well say that, but would be entirely wrong to do so. She's made it absolutely clear that she wants a deal. She's made it very clear what kind of deal she wants - one which is very much in the interests of both sides. She's done everything she could, including calling this election, to make such a deal more likely.
If she's unsuccessful, it will be entirely because the EU27 don't want to do a deal. That would be very unfortunate, for both sides, and it will indeed make the economic position worse. No reasonable person would be able to blame her for that.
Rubbish - Mrs May could be unsuccessful because the EU will not agree to the deal that she wants the EU to agree to. It might be one, for example, that envisages the EU agreeing to EU citizens resident in the UK enjoying fewer rights than they have now; or which requires EU institutions such as the EMA to remain in the UK; or one which demands unfettered access to the single market with little or no ongoing UK payments. Instead of agreeing compromises on these and other issues, Mrs May might well say that these are absolute red lines which she will not cross. In such circumstances, many reasonable people might well conclude that Mrs May was the cause of the breakdowns, not the EU; especially if the result is that the UK and its citizens suffer significant economic harm.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Have heard the same round here. The "Baby Boomers" are in revolt lol!!!!!
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
If it wasn't for Brexit and the threat of Corbyn I doubt I could vote for TMay. Too many stupid, nannying ideas. Ugh.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
A lot of lefties are now talking that way Sean. The thinking seems to be that Corbyn will go anyway if he loses by 60+ seats but then Labour will be in contention to win again in 2022. My view is that any vote will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn, although I think it's much harder than people think (or the PB Tories desperately wishfully think) for him to hang on in the face of even a modestly thumping defeat.
Agree about May. Ugh. She's a meddling busybody. A provincial dullard.
It's very telling that you repeatedly use "provincial" as an insult (you've done it at least twice in this thread alone!). Has it occurred to you that it may say more about you than it does about the provinces (whatever they are?)
Possibly, but I don't really care. It's neat enough shorthand for describing her worldview.
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
If it's in the manifesto on which the Tories win, then the Lords are constitutionally obliged to let it pass.
As has been pointed out earlier, the manifesto doesn't mention photo ID, so if the bill requires a photo, the Lords could amend to include a broader range of documents.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
Like the 'bedroom tax' it is only a meme in areas that are unlikely to swing Tory, amongst those who like to moan about Tories. Many JAMs will be pleased that they don't have to spend their life savings so that Mr Richbags can have subsidelised care within his expensive house....
This policy will hurt a lot of people especially in the south east and London. How will it help anyone? Is she planning on giving benefits to the poor to pay for social care? No she is just taking. It will be deeply unpopular and will be changed in governmnt.
I'm sure it will be amended for the better in parliament given the already apparent disquiet among ordinary Tory MPs (according to Twitter so must be true) so why not have kept it vague in the manifesto..
I read that on here, that she doesn't drink because it affects her diabetes. As you are mates with her, maybe you can confirm it?
She certainly wasn't teetotal at University. She was President of the Edmund Burke Society whose purposes were 'The making of funny speeches, the consumption of port and the minimisation of the President's bank balance' (the President paid for the port and you got an extra glass if you spoke...)
Does she fake it now?
That's just a bracing glass of fox blood. To be taken naked, twice a day.
Baby's blood twice daily. Fox blood only on special occassions.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
The one thing I will admit Nick is that Corbyn is having a good campaign – he seems to like campaigning, whereas the other leaders clearly loathe it (May in particular looks like she desperately wants the whole thing to end). He is certainly not as bad as the caricature. I'll give him that.
Agree about the polling – I think the PB Tory panic is just the normal bedwetting. They'll be back up to around a 20pt lead by Sunday night, I should think.
JC has had a good war and it's a long way from over. Like all right thinking people I refused to believe the stupid old twat could win but I thought that about Brexit and Trump vs HRC right up to the death.
Corbyn is very much at home at meetings and rallies in which everyone present agrees with him. Speaking in public to a mass gathering of Labour members is pretty much the same as May talking in front of very small gatherings of Tory members. The only difference, really, is that Corbyn feels comfortable performing in front of his own people, whiel May does not.
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
If it's in the manifesto on which the Tories win, then the Lords are constitutionally obliged to let it pass.
As has been pointed out earlier, the manifesto doesn't mention photo ID, so if the bill requires a photo, the Lords could amend to include a broader range of documents.
Including a self-declaration form, presumably? "I hereby sign to say I am SandyRentool, and I hereby promise to pay you£350m a week to spend on a health and wellbeing service of your choice – including massages."
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
PS My lefty friend is also hopeful that Corbyn will retire, immediately after a defeat, and be replaced by someone sensible and moderate. I pointed out that moderate lefties like him, returning to Labour to prevent a Tory landslide, are paradoxically guaranteeing that Corbyn will stay on, after a decent result.
He hadn't thought of that: he winced at the idea.
So he might change his mind, again.
I don't know why they didn't just keep hammering Corbyn and Brexit and issue a manifesto with just a few key (and vague) pledges.
Cameron made the same mistake in 2010 when instead of keeping the focus on Brown and the economy he got side-tracked with that big society rubbish.
Was probably the difference between a hung parliament and an overall majority.
Theresa's mistake will probably be the difference between a workable majority 40-50 and what could've been a landslide.
Yes, I think she's blown any chance of a Labour-destroying landslide.
Doesn't a non-Corbyn-destroying smaller landslide screw Labour even worse?
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
PS My lefty friend is also hopeful that Corbyn will retire, immediately after a defeat, and be replaced by someone sensible and moderate. I pointed out that moderate lefties like him, returning to Labour to prevent a Tory landslide, are paradoxically guaranteeing that Corbyn will stay on, after a decent result.
He hadn't thought of that: he winced at the idea.
So he might change his mind, again.
I don't know why they didn't just keep hammering Corbyn and Brexit and issue a manifesto with just a few key (and vague) pledges.
Cameron made the same mistake in 2010 when instead of keeping the focus on Brown and the economy he got side-tracked with that big society rubbish.
Was probably the difference between a hung parliament and an overall majority.
Theresa's mistake will probably be the difference between a workable majority 40-50 and what could've been a landslide.
And that will work out just fine for Corbyn and the hard Left. They will now only have to hold on for a single parliamentary term before natural political drift sees them back in contention. Indeed, if Brexit goes badly and one of Theresa's policies turns out to be a Poll Tax, Labour might even be victorious in 2022. Oh Theresa, what have you done?
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
If it's in the manifesto on which the Tories win, then the Lords are constitutionally obliged to let it pass.
As has been pointed out earlier, the manifesto doesn't mention photo ID, so if the bill requires a photo, the Lords could amend to include a broader range of documents.
TMay could have avoided all of this by just saying We Will Reform The House of Lords in her manifesto. One key pledge. Put the Fear of God in the ermined fools.
Yes, that comes well before reducing the size of the Commons, just as sorting out postal vote fraud comes well before in-person vote fraud. Pattern emerging.
Rubbish - Mrs May could be unsuccessful because the EU will not agree to the deal that she wants the EU to agree to. It might be one, for example, that envisages the EU agreeing to EU citizens resident in the UK enjoying fewer rights than they have now; or which requires EU institutions such as the EMA to remain in the UK; or one which demands unfettered access to the single market with little or no ongoing UK payments. Instead of agreeing compromises on these and other issues, Mrs May might well say that these are absolute red lines which she will not cross. In such circumstances, many reasonable people might well conclude that Mrs May was the cause of the breakdowns, not the EU; especially if the result is that the UK and its citizens suffer significant economic harm.
Your premise is absurd; there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that she'd make red lines out of those points.
Yes, of course, if she were the one being unreasonable, she'd be to blame. But she isn't; it's the other side which has taken the absolutely extraordinary position of 'agree to pay us zillions before we'll even begin discussing the future relationship' - a position which is not only manifestly absurd in itself, but is the exact opposite of the treaty wording.
That's how bad it is. MPs know how this is going down with voters.
She's fucked this up so badly, her own MPs are disowning it a day later. Idiotic woman.
I can't believe Lynton would have let her get involved with this social care can of worms. Makes you wonder how much influence he's got on this campaign (I would guess not very much)
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
Yep. My parents both collected theirs last year - and promptly spent it on a pair of flights to go and visit their children and grandchildren in warmer climes over the winter.
That's really not efficient use of taxpayers' money, it should be a bonus rolled into those who claim pensioner credit.
On the numbers, 12m x £300 is £3.6bn, so there's probably a £2bn saving to be made here - money that's better spent on health and social care than subsidising middle class retirees who are still enjoying life.
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
If it's in the manifesto on which the Tories win, then the Lords are constitutionally obliged to let it pass.
As has been pointed out earlier, the manifesto doesn't mention photo ID, so if the bill requires a photo, the Lords could amend to include a broader range of documents.
Including a self-declaration form, presumably? "I hereby sign to say I am SandyRentool, and I hereby promise to pay you£350m a week to spend on a health and wellbeing service of your choice – including massages."
And here I was thinking we had moved on from the £350 million...
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
If it's in the manifesto on which the Tories win, then the Lords are constitutionally obliged to let it pass.
And here I was thinking we had moved on from the £350 million...
Unfortunately I am very poor at giving massages.
All in jest, Sandy. Hatchet buried from my POV long ago.
For the first time you’ll be asked to cash-in your home when it comes to paying for your care and your treatment.
And the worst thing, to my mind - let’s say you’re the wife of a husband who has to go into a nursing home because of dementia, the reality is your house, the house that you still live in, the family home, will have to be cashed-in now under the Tories’ heartless dementia tax.
Rubbish - Mrs May could be unsuccessful because the EU will not agree to the deal that she wants the EU to agree to. It might be one, for example, that envisages the EU agreeing to EU citizens resident in the UK enjoying fewer rights than they have now; or which requires EU institutions such as the EMA to remain in the UK; or one which demands unfettered access to the single market with little or no ongoing UK payments. Instead of agreeing compromises on these and other issues, Mrs May might well say that these are absolute red lines which she will not cross. In such circumstances, many reasonable people might well conclude that Mrs May was the cause of the breakdowns, not the EU; especially if the result is that the UK and its citizens suffer significant economic harm.
Your premise is absurd; there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that she'd make red lines out of those points.
Yes, of course, if she were the one being unreasonable, she'd be to blame. But she isn't; it's the other side which has taken the absolutely extraordinary position of 'agree to pay us zillions before we'll even begin discussing the future relationship' - a position which is not only manifestly absurd, but is the exact opposite of the treaty wording.
No, that is not the position the EU has taken. The EU has made absolutely clear it wants to see progress towards an agreement on payments, not a final agreement. The EU anticipates that this can be achieved by October.
On the other hand, we do not know what the UK red lines are, because the government will not tell us.
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
Hopefully the recent re-registration exercise has removed a lot of the opportunity for fraud, as would tighter control of postal votes (perhaps accompanied by early voting). Allowing the list of ID that Royal Mail uses might be a starting point, I believe the Electoral Commission have already suggested something similar.
We need to stay well away from making access to voting a partisan issue, as it is in the USA, where both sides bring up well rehearsed arguments for and against all sorts of things related to voting, when it's clear the reasons behind their position are purely partisan. Getting multi-party support behind an EC proposal is probably the correct way forward here.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
If it's in the manifesto on which the Tories win, then the Lords are constitutionally obliged to let it pass.
Oops yes. I imagine there's be a lot of wrangling though - a bill mentioning photo ID wouldn't get through - no mention of that in the manifesto - unless the govt offered to pay for everyone to get photo ID, which they might not do because of the cost. I think/hope the commitment will get shelved.
Rubbish - Mrs May could be unsuccessful because the EU will not agree to the deal that she wants the EU to agree to. It might be one, for example, that envisages the EU agreeing to EU citizens resident in the UK enjoying fewer rights than they have now; or which requires EU institutions such as the EMA to remain in the UK; or one which demands unfettered access to the single market with little or no ongoing UK payments. Instead of agreeing compromises on these and other issues, Mrs May might well say that these are absolute red lines which she will not cross. In such circumstances, many reasonable people might well conclude that Mrs May was the cause of the breakdowns, not the EU; especially if the result is that the UK and its citizens suffer significant economic harm.
Your premise is absurd; there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that she'd make red lines out of those points.
Yes, of course, if she were the one being unreasonable, she'd be to blame. But she isn't; it's the other side which has taken the absolutely extraordinary position of 'agree to pay us zillions before we'll even begin discussing the future relationship' - a position which is not only manifestly absurd, but is the exact opposite of the treaty wording.
The A50 wording only talks about taking account of the future framework. If the UK is refusing to honour its obligations, that framework can hardly be a constructive one.
Either way the blame game around the details of the negotiations is secondary to the false Brexit premise of 'they need us more than we need them'. Bluff and bluster will not make it so.
Still think this is political genius by May - She's letting Corbyn get a large enough Share of Vote so he hangs around like a bad smell crippling Labour long term - too big a win and either Corbyn has to go or a mass clean break happens creating a new, with purpose, opposition. She still gets a large enough majority to sideline the headbangers and deliver soft Brexit killing Sindy stone dead and keying up SCon to take around 50% of the seats in Scotland at the next Holyrood and General election.
**Betting tip** - Labour to gain Leeds North West at 10/1 with bet365.com. Even when Michael Foot took Labour to disaster in 1983 the party was still able to make 4 seat gains in the process. Leeds North West looks like it could be one of the very few gains of the night for Labour this time. With the current polling it’s probably fair to look at this seat as a 3-way marginal. With the Liberal Democrats struggling against expectations in the general election Greg Mulholland looks vulnerable to Corbyn’s Labour in a constituency with a lot of students and young graduates.
Corbyn visited the constituency last week and so big were the crowds that roads had to be closed. While Corbynmania might not be present in the vast majority of marginal seats, it’s fair to say that that it is very clearly here as the news reports show:
The results in 2015 were: Lib Dem 15,948 Labour 13,041 Con 8,083 Green 3,041 UKIP 2,997
The only downside for Labour is that UKIP aren’t standing a candidate and the Greens are. But this is probably a seat with a bit of a ceiling to the number of people who would vote Conservative. I think Labour are right in the mix here and I wouldn’t be sleeping easy if I were Greg Mulholland. Ladbrokes price a Labour gain at 5/1 (which I still think represents value) but the 10s with Bet365 is very generous:
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I think two factors arre converging - Labour people who don't like Corbyn are coming to feel he's not that bad (as IanB2 says, the reality is proving less awful than the cartoon image conveyed by the media), plus they are really allergic to the idea of a huge Tory majority doing all kinds of weird stuff unrelated to Brexit (from internet censorship to fox-hunting) which they wouldn't risk on a small majority.
Against that, the monolithic support of the Tory media is a firewall for May, and I'm not expected the hit in the weekend polls that you anticipate. I think Labour will slip back slightly now we've passed peak limelight.
Hmm. It's possible Labour might not gain, but I find it hard to believe the Tories won't take a hit from their utterly stupid social care policies (stupid as in badly presented and very hard to sell).
Dementia Tax. It's already a meme. Calamitously inept politics.
PS My lefty friend is also hopeful that Corbyn will retire, immediately after a defeat, and be replaced by someone sensible and moderate. I pointed out that moderate lefties like him, returning to Labour to prevent a Tory landslide, are paradoxically guaranteeing that Corbyn will stay on, after a decent result.
He hadn't thought of that: he winced at the idea.
So he might change his mind, again.
I don't know why they didn't just keep hammering Corbyn and Brexit and issue a manifesto with just a few key (and vague) pledges.
Cameron made the same mistake in 2010 when instead of keeping the focus on Brown and the economy he got side-tracked with that big society rubbish.
Was probably the difference between a hung parliament and an overall majority.
Theresa's mistake will probably be the difference between a workable majority 40-50 and what could've been a landslide.
Yes, I think she's blown any chance of a Labour-destroying landslide.
Maybe she doesn't want to destroy Labour as that only opens up the doorway for En Marche UK Style, but she would rather keep Corbyn firmly in place after the GE to ensure probable victory in 2022. The perfect result for the Tories would be a workable majority, but Labour doing well enough for Corbyn to be cemented in and to resist the pressure for him to quit. However, even if she does achieve this it's risking the possibility of a Corbyn victory too if events conspire against her in the next five years.. The National Interest would be to destroy Corbyn, but the Tory Party Interest would be to keep him as LOTO.
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
Yep. My parents both collected theirs last year - and promptly spent it on a pair of flights to go and visit their children and grandchildren in warmer climes over the winter.
That's really not efficient use of taxpayers' money, it should be a bonus rolled into those who claim pensioner credit.
On the numbers, 12m x £300 is £3.6bn, so there's probably a £2bn saving to be made here - money that's better spent on health and social care than subsidising middle class retirees who are still enjoying life.
I do actually agree with cutting back the perks for a baby boomers and reforming social care (not sure if TM's reforms are the right one's but something needs to be done) but it's the politics that's bad.
She's in effect called an "emergency" Brexit election to put an end to the "game playing" and secure a mandate for her negotiations. Juxtaposed she's also calling out Corbyn for being unsuitable to lead the country (especially in this time of crisis) that's fair enough and is a strong enough narrative to carry her to a landslide on it's own,
Now she veered off in a completely different direction with these social care reforms, took the focus away from Corbyn and Brexit and upset the key demographic that's going to vote (the baby boomers are addicted to their "perks" so putting them at risk in the middle of an emergency election hardly seems sensible)
It's bad politics. The kind of errors you'd expect from Cameron and Osborne....
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
So, 3 million households could be automatically receiving £600 every year. Rather generous.
This is another albeit lesser cock-up. Winter fuel payments should simply be taxed - no bureaucratic and expensive means testing . No headlines frightening oldsters.
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
Yep. My parents both collected theirs last year - and promptly spent it on a pair of flights to go and visit their children and grandchildren in warmer climes over the winter.
That's really not efficient use of taxpayers' money, it should be a bonus rolled into those who claim pensioner credit.
On the numbers, 12m x £300 is £3.6bn, so there's probably a £2bn saving to be made here - money that's better spent on health and social care than subsidising middle class retirees who are still enjoying life.
We will have to wait for some polling but I think the social care announcement was a calculated risk. Reform of social care was a nettle that had to be grasped and it had to go into the manifesto to minimise the risk of rebellions in the Commons or the Lords throwing it out. I assume the calculation was that for everybody who changes their vote because they now have to pay for their own in-home care and/or forfeit the grand sum of £100 per year, there will be at least one person who agrees that this is a sensible reform or is actually pleased that their elderly mum who is in a care home will get to pass on some of her estate.
For the first time you’ll be asked to cash-in your home when it comes to paying for your care and your treatment.
And the worst thing, to my mind - let’s say you’re the wife of a husband who has to go into a nursing home because of dementia, the reality is your house, the house that you still live in, the family home, will have to be cashed-in now under the Tories’ heartless dementia tax.
No, that is not the position the EU has taken. The EU has made absolutely clear it wants to see progress towards an agreement on payments, not a final agreement. The EU anticipates that this can be achieved by October.
But that's nonsense. If there's no deal, why on earth would we want to pay them tuppence, let alone billions of Euros? If we're going to crash out in acrimony, then we might as well crash out in acrimony with no payment.
"A recent poll in Germany and other EU countries showed that eight in 10 people thought that the interests of the EU should be more important during negotiations than keeping intact economic ties to the UK."
Only 8 in 10?
That phrasing is pretty close to a tautology, of course EU voters should be more concerned about the interests of the EU. The fact is though that keeping intact economic ties to the UK is in the interests of the EU but if you phrase it as an alternative you're going to get skewed results.
Went shopping with my father this morning who is recovering from a wrist operation and can't push a trolley or lift bags.
Anyway I was surprised at a lot of the anti Theresa May talk I overheard by pensioners as we were going around the supermarkets in Accrington and Great Harwood, kept hearing the word 'betrayed'. That's of course only at 3 supermarkets we went to, but I do wonder if elsewhere and across the country there is a rising unhappiness with her with a demographic that usually votes Tory and does actually get out and vote.
Have heard the same round here. The "Baby Boomers" are in revolt lol!!!!!
I'm expecting quite a big hit for the Tories in the weekend polls 2-3% down.
Now they've unrelieved their manifesto they need to get back on to Brexit and Corbyn 24/7 from now until 8th June.
If it wasn't for Brexit and the threat of Corbyn I doubt I could vote for TMay. Too many stupid, nannying ideas. Ugh.
Incidentally I had drinks with a lefty friend last night; he despises Corbyn and wasn't going to vote Labour, now he is, because he thinks Corbyn has no chance, and he doesn't want a Tory landslide.
How many think like him?
I for one. I'm even out delivering leaflets in the nextdoor marginal to try and stop the Tory taking it.
I have no marginals within 50 miles, only mispriced odds wrongly suggesting more than one person has a chance.
No, that is not the position the EU has taken. The EU has made absolutely clear it wants to see progress towards an agreement on payments, not a final agreement. The EU anticipates that this can be achieved by October.
But that's nonsense. If there's no deal, why on earth would we want to pay them tuppence, let alone billions of Euros? If we're going to crash out in acrimony, then we might as well crash out in acrimony with no payment.
But the EU is not demanding payment, it is demanding progress towards payment. If there is no deal, we will not have paid them anything.
It doesn't matter. The Tories have sold this silly pledge so badly (not least, because it so hard to sell) they've made it possible for every opposition politician to say this stuff - and get a hearing.
It's all about perceptions. Optics. The social care policy is a crass, unforced political error, and you know it.
It might be an error, if you judge it only by the short-term political effect. However, to govern is to choose, and everyone agrees that care for elderly is one of the biggest challenges facing the country.
Personation. Simple as that. Did you read the pdf I linked to?
I've read it before. This is an area I have an interest in.
From the document: "As at 31 December 2011, court proceedings have been initiated in one case of personation at a polling station, and one case relating to an imprint offence has been resolved with a caution."
One case.
As it happens, non-photo ID wouldn't fix anything. Photo ID would have severe consequences on many people who are legally able to vote (it will also cause problems in the voting stations, although that's a procedural issue).
Yes, it's a difficult one this, with the balance between ensuring that everyone gets a vote but also ensuring that everyone entitled has the opportunity to vote.
.
There's also the added, shall we say "Cultural" issues in certain "Communities", which give their own problems. These are best resolved by better policing on the day of the election, especially around polling stations.
Voter ID probably won't get through the Lords, and quite a few Tories would rebel too. As has been said so often, it's trying to solve a problem that hasn't been shown to exist, and therefore looks partisan. Postal voting has been a much bigger problem and one that still has to be resolved.
If it's in the manifesto on which the Tories win, then the Lords are constitutionally obliged to let it pass.
As has been pointed out earlier, the manifesto doesn't mention photo ID, so if the bill requires a photo, the Lords could amend to include a broader range of documents.
TMay could have avoided all of this by just saying We Will Reform The House of Lords in her manifesto. One key pledge. Put the Fear of God in the ermined fools.
Although comprehensive reform is not a priority we will ensure that the House of Lords continues to fulfill its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons. We have already undertaken reform to allow the retirement of peers and the expulsion of members for poor conduct and will continue to ensure the work of the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by addressing issues such as its size.
I think the PM can live with a few "we need to rob the geriatric Peter to look after just about managing Paul" stories. You'll be able to tell if Sir Lynton is involved, and concerned, when we see a personal attack on Corbyn/McDonnell on the Sunday political TV to move the story on.
For the first time you’ll be asked to cash-in your home when it comes to paying for your care and your treatment.
And the worst thing, to my mind - let’s say you’re the wife of a husband who has to go into a nursing home because of dementia, the reality is your house, the house that you still live in, the family home, will have to be cashed-in now under the Tories’ heartless dementia tax.
I presume he's just a grade A idiot who doesn't know the basics about how the current system works, not deliberately lying.
Farron is wrong of course but whether it's deliberate or he is just a bellend is not the point.
Perception of this policy is key, and I fear it is being very badly perceived.
The fact that as it stands Labour and the LDs will keep the status quo and make you sell your house whilst still alive and spend all but your last £23.5K whereas the tories will NOT force you to sell your house, that will only happen after death and your family get to keep £100K...
That's how bad it is. MPs know how this is going down with voters.
She's fucked this up so badly, her own MPs are disowning it a day later. Idiotic woman.
hey - that's the person who will be leading the UK's Brexit negotiating team you are talking about there.
Indeed. And for the first time in a while I am filled with gloom. Not Bremorse, but gloom.
I think it's gonna be Crash Brexit. It won't be all TMay's fault but she is stubborn, fussy and narrow-minded, and the EU is incoherent, greedy and antagonised - put the two together: BOOM.
She is a stubborn nitpicker. Hardly the type of person you want in a negotiation. Send in Peter Mandelson. Someone with a bit of panache.
No, that is not the position the EU has taken. The EU has made absolutely clear it wants to see progress towards an agreement on payments, not a final agreement. The EU anticipates that this can be achieved by October.
But that's nonsense. If there's no deal, why on earth would we want to pay them tuppence, let alone billions of Euros? If we're going to crash out in acrimony, then we might as well crash out in acrimony with no payment.
But the EU is not demanding payment, it is demanding progress towards payment. If there is no deal, we will not have paid them anything.
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
So, 3 million households could be automatically receiving £600 every year. Rather generous.
This is another albeit lesser cock-up. Winter fuel payments should simply be taxed - no bureaucratic and expensive means testing . No headlines frightening oldsters.
I assume that they have done their maths and worked out that they would save much more by excluding people rather than clawing back some of it in tax.
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
Yep. My parents both collected theirs last year - and promptly spent it on a pair of flights to go and visit their children and grandchildren in warmer climes over the winter.
That's really not efficient use of taxpayers' money, it should be a bonus rolled into those who claim pensioner credit.
On the numbers, 12m x £300 is £3.6bn, so there's probably a £2bn saving to be made here - money that's better spent on health and social care than subsidising middle class retirees who are still enjoying life.
We will have to wait for some polling but I think the social care announcement was a calculated risk. Reform of social care was a nettle that had to be grasped and it had to go into the manifesto to minimise the risk of rebellions in the Commons or the Lords throwing it out. I assume the calculation was that for everybody who changes their vote because they now have to pay for their own in-home care and/or forfeit the grand sum of £100 per year, there will be at least one person who agrees that this is a sensible reform or is actually pleased that their elderly mum who is in a care home will get to pass on some of her estate.
Agree with you completely about the social care reforms, if there was one issue that needed some political capital spent on it, then social care is probably that issue right now.
What does need to happen though, is a detailed briefing paper handed to every Conservative that's going to touch the media this weekend, before opponents of the proposal trash it as "Dementia Tax" - especially when those opponents didn't have the balls to propose any reform of the currently broken system in their own manifestos.
I think the PM can live with a few "we need to rob the geriatric Peter to look after just about managing Paul" stories. You'll be able to tell if Sir Lynton is involved, and concerned, when we see a personal attack on Corbyn/McDonnell on the Sunday political TV to move the story on.
Michael Fallon is usually wheeled out to do those, but after his dismal performance against Emily "Honey Lips" Thornberry, I doubt the odious Crosby will be beating down his door.
For the first time you’ll be asked to cash-in your home when it comes to paying for your care and your treatment.
And the worst thing, to my mind - let’s say you’re the wife of a husband who has to go into a nursing home because of dementia, the reality is your house, the house that you still live in, the family home, will have to be cashed-in now under the Tories’ heartless dementia tax.
I presume he's just a grade A idiot who doesn't know the basics about how the current system works, not deliberately lying.
Farron is wrong of course but whether it's deliberate or he is just a bellend is not the point.
Perception of this policy is key, and I fear it is being very badly perceived.
The fact that as it stands Labour and the LDs will keep the status quo and make you sell your house whilst still alive and spend all but your last £23.5K whereas the tories will NOT force you to sell your house, that will only happen after death and your family get to keep £100K...
For the first time you’ll be asked to cash-in your home when it comes to paying for your care and your treatment.
And the worst thing, to my mind - let’s say you’re the wife of a husband who has to go into a nursing home because of dementia, the reality is your house, the house that you still live in, the family home, will have to be cashed-in now under the Tories’ heartless dementia tax.
I presume he's just a grade A idiot who doesn't know the basics about how the current system works, not deliberately lying.
Farron is wrong of course but whether it's deliberate or he is just a bellend is not the point.
Perception of this policy is key, and I fear it is being very badly perceived.
The fact that as it stands Labour and the LDs will keep the status quo and make you sell your house whilst still alive and spend all but your last £23.5K whereas the tories will NOT force you to sell your house, that will only happen after death and your family get to keep £100K...
I am in favour of a defined-purpose and well-run pilot, designed to test the effect of a change, or preferably different changes (though there are always difficulties with pilot schemes being set up to get a particular result). It should always be made clear that, if the results are unsatisfactory, no change will occur.
But in the manifesto this has become: "We will legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting"
So it seems the pilot schemes have fallen by the wayside, and the government will just do whatever is in its own interests.
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
Yep. My parents both collected theirs last year - and promptly spent it on a pair of flights to go and visit their children and grandchildren in warmer climes over the winter.
That's really not efficient use of taxpayers' money, it should be a bonus rolled into those who claim pensioner credit.
On the numbers, 12m x £300 is £3.6bn, so there's probably a £2bn saving to be made here - money that's better spent on health and social care than subsidising middle class retirees who are still enjoying life.
We will have to wait for some polling but I think the social care announcement was a calculated risk. Reform of social care was a nettle that had to be grasped and it had to go into the manifesto to minimise the risk of rebellions in the Commons or the Lords throwing it out. I assume the calculation was that for everybody who changes their vote because they now have to pay for their own in-home care and/or forfeit the grand sum of £100 per year, there will be at least one person who agrees that this is a sensible reform or is actually pleased that their elderly mum who is in a care home will get to pass on some of her estate.
Agree with you completely about the social care reforms, if there was one issue that needed some political capital spent on it, then social care is probably that issue right now.
What does need to happen though, is a detailed briefing paper handed to every Conservative that's going to touch the media this weekend, before opponents of the proposal trash it as "Dementia Tax" - especially when those opponents didn't have the balls to propose any reform of the currently broken system in their own manifestos.
I couldn't agree more. If the Tories go from landslide to working majority and the social care question is addressed then I regard it as a job well done. No political party has given serious thought about this for decades. At least T May has the balls to propose something.
Faisal IslamVerified account @faisalislam 8m8 minutes ago
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
Yep. My parents both collected theirs last year - and promptly spent it on a pair of flights to go and visit their children and grandchildren in warmer climes over the winter.
That's really not efficient use of taxpayers' money, it should be a bonus rolled into those who claim pensioner credit.
On the numbers, 12m x £300 is £3.6bn, so there's probably a £2bn saving to be made here - money that's better spent on health and social care than subsidising middle class retirees who are still enjoying life.
Can you tell us did they get £300 each as many on twitter attacking Faisal Islam by saying its 50% each they recive -so £300 per household
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
When you resort to such sophistry you are losing, Charles. EU citizens had no reason to believe they were utilising a temporary arrangement. You know that, whatever you may write here.
Not sophistry. If someone has a permanent right to remain they have entered into a contract with the British state. If someone is relying on an agreement between their home state and the state in which they are resident they are assuming that those rights will remain unchanged, but they have no guarantee that is the case
Sophistry, I'm afraid. Your case would not stand up in court. The UK's membership of the European Union was never intended to be a temporary arrangement. The fact that the practicalities of leaving are so extraordinarily complex demonstrates that.
You might have wanted it to be permanent but I certainly intended (and campaigned for) it to be as temporary as possible!
To move on a little and subject to the Black Swan of the greatest polling comeback since Truman beat Dewey in '48, three weeks today Theresa May will be returning from the Palace and the triumphalism of some on here will know no bounds.
For those for whom supporting a political party is akin to supporting a football team, the Blues will be triumphant and the Reds and Oranges will less be assessing their losses than counting their dead and having to listen to an unending litany of jibes and gloating.
So be it, one day it'll be the other way round as sure as night follows day.
How though will the Opposition parties respond to defeat ?
As always, a lot will depend on how bad it is. The Conservative experience post 1997 might suggest the bigger the defeat the more the survivors turn inward for comfort and mutual support but whether that will be true of Labour this time is debatable.
The question is whether something will happen immediately or develop over time - the seeds of the SDP schism existed in 1979 but it took another 18 months before the probability of a breakaway became evident. In 1987, Steel moved immediately on the question of merger and set an unfortunate agenda which turned out badly for all involved.
It's obvious to infer the bigger the size of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the more likely Corbyn's survival but there is a "sweet spot" if you will where the defeat is so bad as to make enough MPs recognise their chances of advancement are nil as long as Corbyn (or someone like him) is in charge. Is there a Kinnock-like figure (though not Stephen Kinnock) who can win from the Left and lead from the Right and effectively turn on those who supported him/her or is the only alternative schism perhaps before or soon after the Party Conference?
As for the LDs, their historic low is 6 seats (1951, 1955 and 1970). Going lower than that (especially to 0-3) would present a huge challenge. Two thirds of those currently in the LDs joined after 2015 - the Party I joined in 1981 is gone. Could such a small rump survive ? Yes, in the short term but IF Labour does schism, the temptation to join forces with the new breakaway group will be very strong (there was a deal of tension in many areas between the Liberals and SDP in the early days).
It's also possible a new centre-left party would find recruits outside politics who would be the glue binding this perhaps initially disparate group together. The question is whether such a new group could be the initial repository for disillusioned Conservative voters post 2017.
As the song goes, there are always more questions than answers...
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/19/german-business-leaders-conservatives-tories-rethink-plan-leave-single-market-trade-eu
Also of note:
"A recent poll in Germany and other EU countries showed that eight in 10 people thought that the interests of the EU should be more important during negotiations than keeping intact economic ties to the UK."
Some facts about Winter Fuel Payments: 12.21 million recipients in 8.736 million households ... ie a fair few double recipients
(*There are only ex-MPs presently)
Yes, of course, if she were the one being unreasonable, she'd be to blame. But she isn't; it's the other side which has taken the absolutely extraordinary position of 'agree to pay us zillions before we'll even begin discussing the future relationship' - a position which is not only manifestly absurd in itself, but is the exact opposite of the treaty wording.
That's really not efficient use of taxpayers' money, it should be a bonus rolled into those who claim pensioner credit.
On the numbers, 12m x £300 is £3.6bn, so there's probably a £2bn saving to be made here - money that's better spent on health and social care than subsidising middle class retirees who are still enjoying life.
Unfortunately I am very poor at giving massages.
For the first time you’ll be asked to cash-in your home when it comes to paying for your care and your treatment.
And the worst thing, to my mind - let’s say you’re the wife of a husband who has to go into a nursing home because of dementia, the reality is your house, the house that you still live in, the family home, will have to be cashed-in now under the Tories’ heartless dementia tax.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/19/general-election-2017-theresa-may-manifesto-scotland-conservatives-politics-live
I presume he's just a grade A idiot who doesn't know the basics about how the current system works, not deliberately lying.
On the other hand, we do not know what the UK red lines are, because the government will not tell us.
Either way the blame game around the details of the negotiations is secondary to the false Brexit premise of 'they need us more than we need them'. Bluff and bluster will not make it so.
Genius.
She's in effect called an "emergency" Brexit election to put an end to the "game playing" and secure a mandate for her negotiations. Juxtaposed she's also calling out Corbyn for being unsuitable to lead the country (especially in this time of crisis) that's fair enough and is a strong enough narrative to carry her to a landslide on it's own,
Now she veered off in a completely different direction with these social care reforms, took the focus away from Corbyn and Brexit and upset the key demographic that's going to vote (the baby boomers are addicted to their "perks" so putting them at risk in the middle of an emergency election hardly seems sensible)
It's bad politics. The kind of errors you'd expect from Cameron and Osborne....
That phrasing is pretty close to a tautology, of course EU voters should be more concerned about the interests of the EU. The fact is though that keeping intact economic ties to the UK is in the interests of the EU but if you phrase it as an alternative you're going to get skewed results.
It's going mammary glands up for the Tories with the dementia tax.
Perception of this policy is key, and I fear it is being very badly perceived.
The fact that as it stands Labour and the LDs will keep the status quo and make you sell your house whilst still alive and spend all but your last £23.5K whereas the tories will NOT force you to sell your house, that will only happen after death and your family get to keep £100K...
...is beside the point .
NEW THREAD
@BBCPhilipSim: Ruth Davidson now pitching directly to Labour voters over their party's "civil war"; "your party has left you, not the other way round"
What does need to happen though, is a detailed briefing paper handed to every Conservative that's going to touch the media this weekend, before opponents of the proposal trash it as "Dementia Tax" - especially when those opponents didn't have the balls to propose any reform of the currently broken system in their own manifestos.
Michael Fallon is usually wheeled out to do those, but after his dismal performance against Emily "Honey Lips" Thornberry, I doubt the odious Crosby will be beating down his door.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/14/general-election-2017-may-promises-homes-for-generation-rent-politics-live
You're having one of your wobbles, aren't you?
Didn't the Tories have a bad time during the 1987 election? Majority was 100.
'A week is a long time in politics'
(c) Harold Wilson
That's the tragic thing about this: the government had already announced a pilot for using ID at polling stations, to be run next year:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/580514/government-response-sir-eric-pickles-review-electoral-fraud.pdf
I am in favour of a defined-purpose and well-run pilot, designed to test the effect of a change, or preferably different changes (though there are always difficulties with pilot schemes being set up to get a particular result). It should always be made clear that, if the results are unsatisfactory, no change will occur.
But in the manifesto this has become: "We will legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting"
So it seems the pilot schemes have fallen by the wayside, and the government will just do whatever is in its own interests.
To move on a little and subject to the Black Swan of the greatest polling comeback since Truman beat Dewey in '48, three weeks today Theresa May will be returning from the Palace and the triumphalism of some on here will know no bounds.
For those for whom supporting a political party is akin to supporting a football team, the Blues will be triumphant and the Reds and Oranges will less be assessing their losses than counting their dead and having to listen to an unending litany of jibes and gloating.
So be it, one day it'll be the other way round as sure as night follows day.
How though will the Opposition parties respond to defeat ?
As always, a lot will depend on how bad it is. The Conservative experience post 1997 might suggest the bigger the defeat the more the survivors turn inward for comfort and mutual support but whether that will be true of Labour this time is debatable.
The question is whether something will happen immediately or develop over time - the seeds of the SDP schism existed in 1979 but it took another 18 months before the probability of a breakaway became evident. In 1987, Steel moved immediately on the question of merger and set an unfortunate agenda which turned out badly for all involved.
It's obvious to infer the bigger the size of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the more likely Corbyn's survival but there is a "sweet spot" if you will where the defeat is so bad as to make enough MPs recognise their chances of advancement are nil as long as Corbyn (or someone like him) is in charge. Is there a Kinnock-like figure (though not Stephen Kinnock) who can win from the Left and lead from the Right and effectively turn on those who supported him/her or is the only alternative schism perhaps before or soon after the Party Conference?
As for the LDs, their historic low is 6 seats (1951, 1955 and 1970). Going lower than that (especially to 0-3) would present a huge challenge. Two thirds of those currently in the LDs joined after 2015 - the Party I joined in 1981 is gone. Could such a small rump survive ? Yes, in the short term but IF Labour does schism, the temptation to join forces with the new breakaway group will be very strong (there was a deal of tension in many areas between the Liberals and SDP in the early days).
It's also possible a new centre-left party would find recruits outside politics who would be the glue binding this perhaps initially disparate group together. The question is whether such a new group could be the initial repository for disillusioned Conservative voters post 2017.
As the song goes, there are always more questions than answers...