The main reason I supported the original reduction in seats - to screw the LibDems into the dirt - has largely gone away now. So I'm really quite 'meh' on the whole thing.
That's a pretty terrible reason for supporting it - but credit for honesty.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
I wouldn't call being in the Euro an enviable position.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
I wouldn't call being in the Euro an enviable position.
If we'd had Clarke's fiscal discipline we would have had more in common with Germany than with Greece. Do you think good long-term governance is beyond our reach?
Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.
Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.
In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.
Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?
I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.
Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.
Thank you Peter - but poor France.... a Blairite. Oh dear!
Macron is a Tory? Hm... maybe he's not all that bad.
Pourquoi n'êtes-vous pas allé rejoindre les Tories, Emmanuel? [blame google]
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
I wouldn't call being in the Euro an enviable position.
Well I suppose being outside the Euro does enable us to protect our economy by continually devaluing until the £ has parity with the Lek. That would be some consolation I suppose for having an economy that also resembles Albania in every other important respect.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
The fact that it takes a year or two to work through, as somebody mentioned this afternoon, means that all the good things can be attributed to the influence of the Lib Dems. It does take while for the PB Tories to cotton on.
There is some truth in that - the LibDems, especially Danny Alexander, took a very responsible view on the deficit when they were in coalition, and therefore played an important role in the economic recovery. They deserve credit for it (and should have claimed credit, as I've said before).
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
I wouldn't call being in the Euro an enviable position.
Well I suppose being outside the Euro does enable us to protect our economy by continually devaluing until the £ has parity with the Lek. That would be some consolation I suppose for having an economy that also resembles Albania in every other important respect.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
I wouldn't call being in the Euro an enviable position.
Well I suppose being outside the Euro does enable us to protect our economy by continually devaluing until the £ has parity with the Lek. That would be some consolation I suppose for having an economy that also resembles Albania in every other important respect.
Probably overstating your case somewhat.
I hope so, but compared with many here I'm an optimist. There are those that think Venezuela is a more likely destination than Albania.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
A structural deficit is a budget deficit based on a fundamental imbalance in government receipts and expenditures
What you call a "simple" deficit is a cyclical occurrence caused by circumstances/actions which arise from time to time.
[ducks and runs from rcs who will both educate and crucify us all at the same time on this]
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
I wouldn't call being in the Euro an enviable position.
Well I suppose being outside the Euro does enable us to protect our economy by continually devaluing until the £ has parity with the Lek. That would be some consolation I suppose for having an economy that also resembles Albania in every other important respect.
I think that alittle unfair. Albania has improving economic prospects
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
A structural deficit is a budget deficit based on a fundamental imbalance in government receipts and expenditures
What you call a "simple" deficit is a cyclical occurrence caused by circumstances/actions which arise from time to time.
[ducks and runs from rcs who will both educate and crucify us all at the same time on this]
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
A structural deficit is a budget deficit based on a fundamental imbalance in government receipts and expenditures
What you call a "simple" deficit is a cyclical occurrence caused by circumstances/actions which arise from time to time.
[ducks and runs from rcs who will both educate and crucify us all at the same time on this]
Geoff, will you please give us fair warning when you are going to post something sensible. I nearly choked on my croissant.
Not just the DUP will be unhappy with these boundary change proposals, the Tories and Labour and SNP would lose seats, the LDs would lose almost half their seats, Plaid would lose 3/4 of their seats and the Greens would lose their only MP. I cannot see them getting through, the only party which would benefit would be Sinn Fein but they do not even take their seats in the Commons anyway
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
Part of taking back control is regaining the sovereignty to self-harm.
I want this country to be able to make its own mind up without being dictated to by a foreign power.
If the country votes, democratically for someone I don't like then that's the will of the people expressed through the ballot box. We must be free to make our own mistakes.
Not just the DUP will be unhappy with these boundary change proposals, the Tories and Labour and SNP would lose seats, Plaid would lose 3/4 of their seats and the Greens would lose their only MP.I cannot see them getting through, the only party which would benefit would be Sinn Fein but they do not even take their seats in the Commons anyway
There is the legitimate argument that 650 MPs should be kept due to the increased workload after leaving the EU (all those laws/regulations that were just left for Brussels). I could be convinced either way on that. What is definitely required is that new boundaries are drawn, whatever the number of seats.
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
I know you won't accept this as an answer, but mine would be David Cameron as PM with Britain out of the EU. What you're really looking for is a bit of Bregret from me, but I don't have any, and I don't see a link: Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour leader well before we voted to Leave and I think his election surge was largely based on anti-austerity and a dire Tory campaign.
Osborne could easily have lost to him in GE2020 in a Remain scenario, and we'd only have had another 18-24 months of Cameron. But I'd be perfectly happy if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
What's a structural deficit? Is it better or worse than a simple deficit?
A structural deficit is a budget deficit based on a fundamental imbalance in government receipts and expenditures
What you call a "simple" deficit is a cyclical occurrence caused by circumstances/actions which arise from time to time.
[ducks and runs from rcs who will both educate and crucify us all at the same time on this]
Geoff, will you please give us fair warning when you are going to post something sensible. I nearly choked on my croissant.
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
Part of taking back control is regaining the sovereignty to self-harm.
I want this country to be able to make its own mind up without being dictated to by a foreign power.
If the country votes, democratically for someone I don't like then that's the will of the people expressed through the ballot box. We must be free to make our own mistakes.
Britain has always been free to make its own mistakes. That was how it got to vote for Brexit off the back of a xenophobic campaign.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
If Corbyn becomes PM it will be on an anti austerity ticket and austerity was underway well before Brexit
I have to say, I didn't know so many of our Conservative friends/PB Righties were so interested in the opinions of the Liberal Left As someone who considers herself a liberal leftie, I believe it's up to France to decide who it wants to invite onto its shores. I'm still a Macron fan (certainly he reflects my beliefs more than Corbyn does). As Beverley_C has said, I'm just simply glad Trump won't be coming here - at least for now.
Meanwhile, what is going on with the government and their stance on the public sector pay cap? I thought they were going to move away from that policy - it looks like they've now changed their minds (again)?
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
I know you won't accept this as an answer, but mine would be David Cameron as PM with Britain out of the EU. What you're really looking for is a bit of Bregret from me, but I don't have any, and I don't see a link: Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour leader well before we voted to Leave and I think his election surge was largely based on anti-austerity and a dire Tory campaign.
Osborne could easily have lost to him in GE2020 in a Remain scenario, and we'd only have had another 18-24 months of Cameron. But I'd be perfectly happy if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I'll put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU (as seems very possible right now), will Leavers consider that a price worth paying?
Some will. But many (like the esteemed Casino Royale of this parish) will walk around like the figure in Munch's The Scream, moaning what the f*ck have I done?
Mr. Royale, on the other hand, plenty of work to do and no consequences because it keeps getting ditched. Swings and roundabouts.
Mr. Meeks, tosh.
If I go job hunting and get hit by a car whilst crossing the road, that doesn't make it wrong to go job hunting. Furthermore, even if I hadn't been job hunting, I might get hit by a car when I'm just out and about.
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
A related question from me.
If we Brexit and then go back into the EU a few years later along with signing up for the Euro and losing our opt-outs, would you think Brexit was worth a try to see if it would work, or do you think we'd have been better off voting for Dave's Deal?
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
A Clarke premiership in 2005 may have imposed the transition controls on migration from Eastern Europe Blair failed to impose which would probably have stopped a future Brexit vote
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
A Clarke premiership in 2005 may have imposed the transition controls on migration from Eastern Europe Blair failed to impose which would probably have stopped a future Brexit vote
Clarke was simply the stand out politican of the period.
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
A related question from me.
If we Brexit and then go back into the EU a few years later along with signing up for the Euro and losing our opt-outs, would you think Brexit was worth a try to see if it would work, or do you think we'd have been better off voting for Dave's Deal?
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Cook and Browne have just put on a record opening stand of 318 for Essex against County Champions Middlesex. Cook has been in sensational form for Essex this year. It augurs well for the Test matches.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
A Clarke premiership in 2005 may have imposed the transition controls on migration from Eastern Europe Blair failed to impose which would probably have stopped a future Brexit vote
Clarke was simply the stand out politican of the period.
If Clarke had been elected Tory leader in 1997 and won in 2001 the UK would not have joined the Iraq War, if Clarke had been elected Tory leader in 2001 (I voted for him then over IDS) he would have imposed transition controls and there would have been no Brexit. He would have run a very similar government to Blair while avoiding his two biggest mistakes
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
A related question from me.
If we Brexit and then go back into the EU a few years later along with signing up for the Euro and losing our opt-outs, would you think Brexit was worth a try to see if it would work, or do you think we'd have been better off voting for Dave's Deal?
We'd have been better off with Dave achieving reform of the EU, and our relationship with it, as he outlined in his Bloomberg speech. He didn't, and perhaps never could, so we took the nuclear option: we're leaving.
I think it will turn out fine, and I don't regret it, but, if what you say comes to pass, and people vote for it, then I will have to try and live with it.
Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.
Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.
In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.
Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?
I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.
Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.
Thank you Peter - but poor France.... a Blairite. Oh dear!
Macron is a Tory? Hm... maybe he's not all that bad.
Pourquoi n'êtes-vous pas allé rejoindre les Tories, Emmanuel? [blame google]
Announced yesterday - still waiting to hear the howls of outrage from the Liberal left.
Am I "Liberal Left"? Maybe so - I certainly find the Conservatives too right wing for my tastes these days and Comrade Corbyn is best avoided.
In any case - I could not care less where Trump goes as long as he does not come here.
Ah - the ultimate cop out -if Macron isn't a Liberal democrat wtf is he?
I do not know. I have no interest in French politics. I know he won the election and that he is younger than his wife but that is more or less my entire knowledge of the man.
Macron is a Blairite. The similarities - personal as well as political - are extraordinary.
Thank you Peter - but poor France.... a Blairite. Oh dear!
Macron is a Tory? Hm... maybe he's not all that bad.
Pourquoi n'êtes-vous pas allé rejoindre les Tories, Emmanuel? [blame google]
And if it hadn't been for Brexit we would probably still be in that position, or maybe better. The only downside would have been the persistent grumbling from europhobes. But Brexit not only destabilised the Government but has now led to a Hung Parliament and every prospect that the next Government will be the most left-wing since WW2.
As a Tory Remainer you must find this deeply regrettable, Richard, but imagine if you were a Tory Leaver. You not only have the horror of what has happened to contend with but you know that in some small measure, you were responsible.
TLs need to be put on suicide watch.
I have been regularly asking Leavers on pb whether they would now prefer Britain out of the EU and Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister or Britain still in the EU with David Cameron as Prime Minister. So far they are sticking to their preference for Brexit, even with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But we'll see whether this line holds indefinitely.
I know you won't accept this as an answer, but mine would be David Cameron as PM with Britain out of the EU. What you're really looking for is a bit of Bregret from me, but I don't have any, and I don't see a link: Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour leader well before we voted to Leave and I think his election surge was largely based on anti-austerity and a dire Tory campaign.
Osborne could easily have lost to him in GE2020 in a Remain scenario, and we'd only have had another 18-24 months of Cameron. But I'd be perfectly happy if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
One thing not often noted is the extra work. Larger constituencies = 8.33% more constituents. Would you take on 8% more patients/pupils/clients/contracts/hours for the same amount? I wouldn't, and I doubt whether MP's will either.
Salaries would rise by at least that 8%, though? And if the admin budget remained the same or rose slightly there would be more money per MP for secretarial and back office work.
MPs are grossly underpaid now and the PM doubly so .... ever since the Sainted Margaret decided that it was too politically difficult to allow them a reasonable salary but they could make up the difference in expenses. A settlement which outlasted her but not the efforts of the Telegraph.
The Conservative Party would never elect Ken Clarke as leader. That they voted for IDS over him says everything.
They would if he took his europhilia off the table for good.
Too many Tories fear he's another Heath in disguise, and won't make that mistake again.
No-one could accuse Ken Clarke of disguising his views on Europe.
As for the comment on Heath, he was completely in tune with the party at the time and was only implementing the policy adopted by Macmillan and voted for by successive parliaments.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
A Clarke premiership in 2005 may have imposed the transition controls on migration from Eastern Europe Blair failed to impose which would probably have stopped a future Brexit vote
Clarke was simply the stand out politican of the period.
If Clarke had been elected Tory leader in 1997 and won in 2001 the UK would not have joined the Iraq War, if Clarke had been elected Tory leader in 2001 (I voted for him then over IDS) he would have imposed transition controls and there would have been no Brexit. He would have run a very similar government to Blair while avoiding his two biggest mistakes
That's perfectly possible.
The Iraq war is a tricky one. The Conservative Party was even more supportive of it than Labour, but I suspect Clarke would have been too shrewd to march lock step with Bush in the way Blair did. Remember that Wilson was able to keep us out of the Vietnam war without wrecking 'the special relationship', so I reckon Clarke could have managed something similar.
Cook and Browne have just put on a record opening stand of 318 for Essex against County Champions Middlesex. Cook has been in sensational form for Essex this year. It augurs well for the Test matches.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
And that's the problem. You refuse to recognise that once you persuade the public to take a leap in the dark, they're going to carry on being much more open to other leaps in the dark. Lunacy begets lunacy.
As I wrote in a thread header a while back, I expect this to be the start of a longterm downward spiral, with nutjobs of left and right each blaming the other for the crises that they will be jointly creating.
My guess is that the Government will say oh, let's leave it at 650 after all, please have another think Boundary Commission =>kicks it into the next Parliament. There will be a minor fuss, over in 24 hours.
Amused to see today's mess - they can't decide if they're lifting the 1% cap or not. Do Ministers talk to each other at all?
God forbid the government actually reflect on the impact of a major policy change to public spending, rather than reflexively changing policy to please an opposition that has no sense of financial responsibility whatsoever.
When the PM's spokesperson says one thing, then the Treasury says another, do you count that as "reflecting"? I agree that they haven't reflexively changed policy to please the opposition, rather that they've changed policy twice in one day to please themselves.
Your government left this country with a structural deficit after more than a decade of continuous growth. You and your party don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the public finances.
Then again, why would you care? Every borrowing overshoot is yet another excuse to increase taxation.
If only we'd had competitive politics throughout the late 90s and most of the 2000s...
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
A Clarke premiership in 2005 may have imposed the transition controls on migration from Eastern Europe Blair failed to impose which would probably have stopped a future Brexit vote
Clarke was simply the stand out politican of the period.
If Clarke had been elected Tory leader in 1997 and won in 2001 mistakes
That's perfectly possible.
The Iraq war is a tricky one. The Conservative Party was even more supportive of it than Labour, but I suspect Clarke would have been too shrewd to march lock step with Bush in the way Blair did. Remember that Wilson was able to keep us out of the Vietnam war without wrecking 'the special relationship', so I reckon Clarke could have managed something similar.
The rest I give you without hesitation.
Yes he would have done a Wilson LBJ with Bush but of course this is all hypothetical but for a few hanging chads in Florida it would have been President Gore and there would have been no Iraq War in the first place
Regarding the Samurai Sword, I guess you lot have never heard of cosplay?
If you do a google image search of 'cosplay' you might get an idea.
Thanks. I can't say I'm much the wiser.
Cosplay = Costume Play
The practice of dressing up as a character from a film, book, or video game, especially one from the Japanese genres of manga or anime.
Yeah, but what's the sex bit, if that's not a question which shouldn't be answered on a respectable website?
The sex bit is if you fantasise about sex with Togukawa Ieyashu. Presumably, if you fantasised about sex with Caesar, your partner would dress up as a Roman.
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Countries joining the EU don't have a choice iirc.
I see Croatia still hasn't joined the Euro.
Only a matter of time. All they need to do is fudge the criteria a little bit further.
Have you been there recently? I was there earlier in the year and I'm going back next month on business. I'll only bother packing Euros in my wallet. Just about everything is priced and paid in euros - and it was even before they joined the EU.
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
I should not be too pessimistic. In 1997, the Nationalist vote share was 40.2%. In 2010 it was 42%. In 2017, it was 41.1%. The Unionist vote share was 50.4%, 50.5%, and 49.5%. That seems pretty stable to me.
The future of the island of Ireland is as a unified, secular nonsectarian state. Northern Ireland is a geopolitical absurdity, born of a fractional and ever diminishing majority and ramped up by a handful of bigoted reactionaries. They are swimming against a demographic tide, thankfully.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
And that's the problem. You refuse to recognise that once you persuade the public to take a leap in the dark, they're going to carry on being much more open to other leaps in the dark. Lunacy begets lunacy.
As I wrote in a thread header a while back, I expect this to be the start of a longterm downward spiral, with nutjobs of left and right each blaming the other for the crises that they will be jointly creating.
Nice to see you absolve the federalists for pushing down a path no-one was ready to go down
Voters making their presence felt is simply the by product of politicians following their own personal agendas
Bets on the return of Salmond to lead the SNP to an Independent Scotland. Kevin Pringle returning as the Minion, and Mr and Mrs Murrell leaving for their retiral home in Portugal.....
One thing is for certain, even if we did rejoin the EU we would never join the Euro
Countries joining the EU don't have a choice iirc.
I see Croatia still hasn't joined the Euro.
Only a matter of time. All they need to do is fudge the criteria a little bit further.
Have you been there recently? I was there earlier in the year and I'm going back next month on business. I'll only bother packing Euros in my wallet. Just about everything is priced and paid in euros - and it was even before they joined the EU.
I visited Zagreb in September 2015. I took Kunas, but things might have changed since then.
Of course there's a link. You're just finding out that your version of crazy has been outbid by a rival offering.
I don't think Leaving the EU is crazy.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
And that's the problem. You refuse to recognise that once you persuade the public to take a leap in the dark, they're going to carry on being much more open to other leaps in the dark. Lunacy begets lunacy.
As I wrote in a thread header a while back, I expect this to be the start of a longterm downward spiral, with nutjobs of left and right each blaming the other for the crises that they will be jointly creating.
Being part of the EU and ruled by Blair/Cameron led to one half of the nations poor being undercut by millions of migrants, and the other half living in abject poverty to be able to afford to undercut them. The two groups had to fight over jobs, housing and state resources while the winners from their misfortunes, rich business owners and politicians, citizens of nowhere you might say, who didn't care how the money was made, looked on from afar, occasionally stirring the pot.
Now they have noticed... this town needed an enema!
Not unless there's significant changes to the NI proposals after public consultation is completed. As they stand, the proposed NI boundaries are simply appalling for Unionism.
Just as a matter of interest, what is the approximate unionist / nationalist split in Northern Ireland?
There's a Unionist plurality (though no longer a majority). But it's not huge.
What is clearly the case is that those born into shall we say a Nationalist background are entering the voting demographic at a faster rate than those from without.
The total Unionist vote share has fallen below 50 per cent and I contend is unlikely to ever get back there (if it did, it would be temporarily because Alliance falls away).
Unionism needs to appeal beyond it's core to deliver Northern Ireland through and beyond 2030.
I don't think it can while it remains dominated by the DUP. But that's a story for another thread (or a speech/platform).
DUP + UUP + Ind Unionist + NI Cons + TUV = 50.7% at GE2017. With UKIP was 50.6 GE2015.
The Commons Library reports 398,921 votes for the five unionists' groups in its preliminary results, whereas the NI total was 812,183. That's just over 49 per cent. 41 per cent for republican and nationalist parties. 1 per cent for small left-wing parties overwhelmingly backed by Catholics. 9 per cent for other cross-community parties, historically strongly pro-union with GB, but becoming more mixed over time. (EDIT: I would guess 2:1 to 3:1 pro-union based on Assembly transfers.)
Comments
Geoff is PB's answer to Shameless.
A Tory party led on Ken Clarke lines, including on Europe, would have seen this country achieve a truly enviable position by now, instead of the utter chaos and humiliation we're facing thanks to Brexit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending#Structural_deficit
What you call a "simple" deficit is a cyclical occurrence caused by circumstances/actions which arise from time to time.
[ducks and runs from rcs who will both educate and crucify us all at the same time on this]
I want this country to be able to make its own mind up without being dictated to by a foreign power.
If the country votes, democratically for someone I don't like then that's the will of the people expressed through the ballot box. We must be free to make our own mistakes.
Osborne could easily have lost to him in GE2020 in a Remain scenario, and we'd only have had another 18-24 months of Cameron. But I'd be perfectly happy if Cameron came back as PM in future once we've left (he won't of course).
Can Corbyn do more damage as PM outside the EU than in? Probably, yes. But if that's what we vote for then that is what we'll get.
He won't be in power forever.
Relax - now you're safe for another few months.
I have to say, I didn't know so many of our Conservative friends/PB Righties were so interested in the opinions of the Liberal Left
Meanwhile, what is going on with the government and their stance on the public sector pay cap? I thought they were going to move away from that policy - it looks like they've now changed their minds (again)?
Why are sex shops selling swords?
Mr. Royale, on the other hand, plenty of work to do and no consequences because it keeps getting ditched. Swings and roundabouts.
Mr. Meeks, tosh.
If I go job hunting and get hit by a car whilst crossing the road, that doesn't make it wrong to go job hunting. Furthermore, even if I hadn't been job hunting, I might get hit by a car when I'm just out and about.
If we Brexit and then go back into the EU a few years later along with signing up for the Euro and losing our opt-outs, would you think Brexit was worth a try to see if it would work, or do you think we'd have been better off voting for Dave's Deal?
Cook and Browne have just put on a record opening stand of 318 for Essex against County Champions Middlesex. Cook has been in sensational form for Essex this year. It augurs well for the Test matches.
If you do a google image search of 'cosplay' you might get an idea.
[HEMA is medieval martial arts, LARP is live action role-playing. I don't do either but have a vague awareness of both].
I think it will turn out fine, and I don't regret it, but, if what you say comes to pass, and people vote for it, then I will have to try and live with it.
Too many Tories fear he's another Heath in disguise, and won't make that mistake again.
I think joining it and signing up to Maastricht and Lisbon was. It becomes ever clearer to me we should have just stayed in and developed EFTA the whole time.
The practice of dressing up as a character from a film, book, or video game, especially one from the Japanese genres of manga or anime.
As for the comment on Heath, he was completely in tune with the party at the time and was only implementing the policy adopted by Macmillan and voted for by successive parliaments.
I mean I believe so.
The Iraq war is a tricky one. The Conservative Party was even more supportive of it than Labour, but I suspect Clarke would have been too shrewd to march lock step with Bush in the way Blair did. Remember that Wilson was able to keep us out of the Vietnam war without wrecking 'the special relationship', so I reckon Clarke could have managed something similar.
The rest I give you without hesitation.
As I wrote in a thread header a while back, I expect this to be the start of a longterm downward spiral, with nutjobs of left and right each blaming the other for the crises that they will be jointly creating.
There's a lot of dressing up as Romans going on there.
I blame Spartacus, the TV show that is.
Have you been there recently? I was there earlier in the year and I'm going back next month on business. I'll only bother packing Euros in my wallet. Just about everything is priced and paid in euros - and it was even before they joined the EU.
Not all their customers may be into BDSM.
Voters making their presence felt is simply the by product of politicians following their own personal agendas
Now they have noticed... this town needed an enema!