politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Part 2 of why the Tories should not fear Corbyn becoming PM in
Comments
-
There's more to it than that I think. They don't recognise Westminster's jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
Thank you.williamglenn said:
That's a reasonable position.welshowl said:If that involves some sacrifice in my wallet so I can look myself in the mirror comfortably in 15 years time so be it. I do not wish that of course, and actually I don't think that will be the case, but I sure as hell am not going to be persuaded by a graph of the last 4 quarters stats on anything.
I think the more significant thing about the current economic data is the success of the Eurozone. The rhetoric about it being a burning building and that we were shackled to a corpse is being shown to be entirely hollow.
These things a cyclical, and doubtless the "uncertainty" in and of itself is a drag on us for a bit. Germany is certainly not going to turn from a BMW into a Trabant, and nor should we wish that.
But like I said I voted for the 2030's not 2020.
0 -
I don't think an ardent Remainer will be winning votes from Labour, no. But an ardent Leaver will lose a lot of votes to Labour, and even under May this will happen IMO to a pretty significant degree in London this year. The UKIP vote was concentrated mostly in boroughs which the Tories already hold, so it will bolster them in Bromley, Bexley and Havering. Croydon is an exception nevertheless the Tories have no chance of winning that back.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.0 -
That's what I think. There is the case of Charles Bradlaugh who tried to take a different oath to the one available at the time (a non-religious one iirc) in 1880s. Thrown out 4 or 5 times and kept getting re-elected.Sandpit said:
Not unless they can find a way to take their seats without pledging to serve the Queen.rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
Yet they take their seats (and a place in the executive) at Stormont.Stark_Dawning said:
There's more to it than that I think. They don't recognise Westminster's jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
Very interesting graph of 2015 vs 2017 voters - who were the 3% who voted Con in 2015 and Lab last year?CarlottaVance said:The BES in 10 charts:
https://twitter.com/i/moments/958306353453436930
UKIP>Con votes the difference metween Mrs May and Corbyn being PM.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/9581130511856967690 -
It is entirely possible Labour makes no net gains in council at all in May, albeit net gains in councillors, given apart from Barnet (which has a strong Jewish anti Corbyn vote) they need at least 10 Tory seats to gain any of the remaining 8 Tory councils in London. Indeed it could be the only Tory council losses are to the LDs in Richmond and Kingston upon Thames while they pick up Havering after the collapse of the UKIP votedavid_herdson said:
Worth reminding ourselves of the 2014 baseline (note - these elections coincided with the 2014 Euroelections, and were themselves coming off elections that coincided with the 2010 general election (give or take reorganisations and one-off all-out elections following boundary reviews etc).Big_G_NorthWales said:
They will in London but not sure elsewhere. Indeed I expect the Lib Dems to do well as they are traditionally good at local level. I expect UKIP to disappearstodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.% Won Ldn +/- Lab 31 2121 1052 +324 Con 29 1364 612 -236 LD 13 427 118 -310 UKIP 17 166 12 +163
The Lib Dems might poll better than a NEV of 13% but if they do, it won't be by much and it's not impossible that they won't do so at all. Even if they do, both Con and Lab will be up on their 2014 shares so the extent to which the Lib Dems can make gains will depend on their ability to target SW London and other areas of promise.
For Con and Lab, the scope to make big net gains looks pretty limited unless one or other can shift the national polls in their advantage. I agree with Big_G that Labour ought to make decent gains in London but these may well be offset to a good degree elsewhere in the country.0 -
Not even if Britain (plus NI) became a republic would SF take seats in Westminster. It’s not just that the UK is a monarchy and they are republicans: they’re Irish republicans which means that they won’t take seats in a foreign parliament ane especially not one that claims sovereignty over part of Ireland.Sandpit said:
Not unless they can find a way to take their seats without pledging to serve the Queen.rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
This whole “could SF take their seats if X happens?” thing needs to die in a fire. There are no circumstances in which SF would ever take up their seats at Westminster. It’s the QTWTAIN sans pareil.0 -
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.0
-
The Tories do not hold Havering it is NOC so UKIP votes could help the Tories win control there.HHemmelig said:
I don't think an ardent Remainer will be winning votes from Labour, no. But an ardent Leaver will lose a lot of votes to Labour, and even under May this will happen IMO to a pretty significant degree in London this year. The UKIP vote was concentrated mostly in boroughs which the Tories already hold, so it will bolster them in Bromley, Bexley and Havering. Croydon is an exception nevertheless the Tories have no chance of winning that back.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Labour need over 10 gains to win either Wandsworth and Westminster and even in June the Tories won an MP in each, that was not the case in Wandsworth in 1997 or 2001 for instance when the Tories still held the borough0 -
Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?0 -
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
But they agreed to Stormont. Westminster was imposed upon them by a colonial master.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yet they take their seats (and a place in the executive) at Stormont.Stark_Dawning said:
There's more to it than that I think. They don't recognise Westminster's jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
Iran?TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?0 -
0
-
The Vatican?TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_for_Vatican_City_State0 -
Iran?TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?0 -
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
Vatican City.TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?0 -
Yup.Rhubarb said:
Iran?TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?
It's a Shi'ite idea.0 -
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
0 -
"An area where Corbyn’s LAB might be concerned is evidence of eroding support is from the younger age groups."
What evidence? Corbyn has proved he can mobilise the youth when it matters, during an election campaign. The fact his support drifts a bit outside of this is unsurprising and irrelevant.0 -
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.0 -
The BBC are determined to lose viewers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/30/brendan-cole-leaves-strictly-come-dancing-14-years-bbc-failed/
They should have got rid of that awful Ballas woman.0 -
Mr. Eagles, if Blairite meddling has taught us anything, it's to beware of constitutional tinkering that hasn't been fully considered. Disestablishing the Church of England because you don't like a handful of bishops having seats in the Lords is daft indeed.0
-
The Experts making predictions in 2016 couldn't even get 2017 right. Why should we take their 2030 predictions seriously?welshowl said:
The on off debate as to whether we are 0.1% here, or 0.5% there, or 4% over 15 years, or 6%, or 1% down already on where we would've been, or whatever, I think misses a few things amongst which are:-TGOHF said:
I'm sure william will apologise if it turns out his pro-EU propaganda is incorrect.Sandpit said:
Wasn’t the Q4 figure 0.5%, which would annualise to about 2.1%?williamglenn said:
I think those are annualised Q4 figures.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Glenn, wasn't growth 1.8%?
1) Economic forecasting does not have a stellar record. E.g. Osborne's predicted recession if we voted out, or the various international bodies getting the UK economy wrong in recent years, (Brown's "no more boom and bust" anyone?) so forecasting over a decade way is for the birds.
2) Though I did not "vote to make myself poorer", I did so with my eyes open and I am not, nor was ever, going to sell my soul for a decimal point of GDP over a year or a few points over a decade.
For many, this was not about the money. It never was. Having come to see the EU as not interested in reform (in my view), it's about wanting to live in a responsive democracy in my old age, where I can still meaningfully fire my govt, and not have my identity rubbed out for some attempt at creating a "superstate".
If that involves some sacrifice in my wallet so I can look myself in the mirror comfortably in 15 years time so be it. I do not wish that of course, and actually I don't think that will be the case, but I sure as hell am not going to be persuaded by a graph of the last 4 quarters stats on anything.
Any forecast can be extremely sophisticated in its data modelling and write-up.
But that means nothing if its underlying assumptions are flawed.0 -
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.CarlottaVance said:
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.0 -
Abolish the Lords, and have a fully elected chamber, will clearly defined powers.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, if Blairite meddling has taught us anything, it's to beware of constitutional tinkering that hasn't been fully considered. Disestablishing the Church of England because you don't like a handful of bishops having seats in the Lords is daft indeed.
0 -
Yes, thanks for spotting that, I meant an oath.Barnesian said:
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
Wow, 'fingers crossed' - that actually happens outside of the playground?
I think the oath is symbolically more important than a Corbo premiership for them....
Though I suspect an election would be called if for any reason the Tories lost their majority.
0 -
Yes, the same demographic issues that are causing problems with health and social care are also reducing the number of betting opportunities from by-elections.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
Since 2010 there have been only nine by-elections caused by death or resignation due to illness. There’s been 21 for various other reasons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(2010–present)0 -
Have you asked them whether they find their work "disgusting?"Dura_Ace said:
They are not "girls" they are women.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
And presenting them as a notional prize in a sporting event is a disgusting anachronism that can't last much longer.0 -
Vatican?TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?0 -
It is unlikely but far from impossible. Moreover at this stage of the 1992 Parliament not a single Tory MP had passed away. That Parliament also saw three Tory defections - one to Labour and two to the LibDems.stevef said:
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.Barnesian said:
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
USA?Stark_Dawning said:
Iran?TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?0 -
Mr. Eagles, and what would become of the Church of England?0
-
Though Westminster is also known for its extreme NIMBYism; its edicts forcing bars etc to close early or shut altogether are always in the news, it is very fierce on parking and planning also. I can imagine this makes the council quite popular amongst chattering class type residents who are not likely to vote Tory nationally. Labour's vote is also clustered North Korea style in a few wards. So I think it likely the Tories will hold Westminster but I'm less sure about Wandsworth.El_Capitano said:
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.CarlottaVance said:
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.0 -
Growth in the UK may well have been 2.3-2.5% last year, were it not for Brexit. One would expect a lower growth rate due to some firms and individuals holding off investment due to uncertainty over the negotiations and relationship end-state. But, GBP currency would also have been at a higher value, which might have worked the other way, and we'd have very probably had net immigration continuing to run at well over 350k a year.Philip_Thompson said:
Fake news. UK was 1.8%williamglenn said:
I suppose this is old news?CarlottaVance said:That's the Evening Standard front page sorted. Not.
https://twitter.com/Rupert_Seggins/status/958281778355232768
It's a world away from flatlining, let alone recession, and says very little about our future long-term economic performance or what sort of country we'll be.0 -
They would be free to stand for election to the new Lords.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, and what would become of the Church of England?
0 -
-
I suspect a large secondary part of SF not taking their seats is that it means they simply don't have to be pinned down on Westminster matters.
It is mightily convenient to be able to abstain every single vote (And have a prime excuse ready to do so), you can project whatever you wish to the electorate.0 -
Band D 2017/18:El_Capitano said:
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.CarlottaVance said:
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Westminster: £688
Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....0 -
My first sentence does.david_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.0 -
Mr. Eagles, would the monarch by supreme governor? Would the Church be established? What would the wider implications be?
Anyway, I must be off.0 -
Andorra has a Spanish bishop as one of their joint heads of state.TheScreamingEagles said:Pop quiz hot shots.
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?
Which national football team is in UEFA but not FIFA?0 -
Apart from the one in Strasbourg and Brussels?rpjs said:
Not even if Britain (plus NI) became a republic would SF take seats in Westminster. It’s not just that the UK is a monarchy and they are republicans: they’re Irish republicans which means that they won’t take seats in a foreign parliament and especially not one that claims sovereignty over part of Ireland.Sandpit said:
Not unless they can find a way to take their seats without pledging to serve the Queen.rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
£1417 is astonishingly cheap for band D. The band E I am looking at is 2.2k/year !CarlottaVance said:
Band D 2017/18:El_Capitano said:
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.CarlottaVance said:
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Westminster: £688
Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....
£688 is just crazy.0 -
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.TheScreamingEagles said:
It was Boris as Chairman of TfL.CarlottaVance said:
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:TheScreamingEagles said:
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28570436
And I think 'anti-gay' might be a more accurate description than 'Christian'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25909961
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality0 -
They don't need to sit to vote in the lobby.Sean_F said:
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.Barnesian said:
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
Isn't Westminster council raking it in from West end business rates though? Not sure you can compare it to any other council0
-
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.0 -
Also Lord James Douglas Hamilton renounced his hereditary peerage to prevent a by-election, despite not having a cat in hell's chance of being re-elected in 97.justin124 said:
It is unlikely but far from impossible. Moreover at this stage of the 1992 Parliament not a single Tory MP had passed away. That Parliament also saw three Tory defections - one to Labour and two to the LibDems.stevef said:
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
Roundabouts and swings though. The Tories are at 40% in the polls now rather than circa 25% in the mid 90s. They would have a good chance of holding by-elections in the likes of Christchurch and Newbury today, which were lost in the 1990s. It depends not just on how many by-elections happen, but on where they happen. Worth saying that many by-elections in recent years came about through resignation, and presumably that can mostly be avoided if necessary through carrots and sticks.0 -
-
That’s if you can actually find a Band D home anywhere in Westminster. Maybe the odd shoebox studio or two.Pulpstar said:
£1417 is astonishingly cheap for band D. The band E I am looking at is 2.2k/year !CarlottaVance said:
Band D 2017/18:El_Capitano said:
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.CarlottaVance said:
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Westminster: £688
Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....
£688 is just crazy.0 -
SF will never accept the validity of the British government to rule over the island of Ireland.Asking them to take up their seats at Westminster would be like asking me to cross a picket line.It's a line in the sand you never cross.Sean_F said:
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.Barnesian said:
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
0 -
I'm not sure your first sentence does - those factors will apply (post-1997) more-or-less to Tories and Labour MPs alike. Your point about willingness to retire is a good one.Casino_Royale said:
My first sentence does.david_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.0 -
I don't disagree really - though the LibDems might still fancy their chances in Newbury in the circumstances of a by election.HHemmelig said:
Also Lord James Douglas Hamilton renounced his hereditary peerage to prevent a by-election, despite not having a cat in hell's chance of being re-elected in 97.justin124 said:
It is unlikely but far from impossible. Moreover at this stage of the 1992 Parliament not a single Tory MP had passed away. That Parliament also saw three Tory defections - one to Labour and two to the LibDems.stevef said:
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
Roundabouts and swings though. The Tories are at 40% in the polls now rather than circa 25% in the mid 90s. They would have a good chance of holding by-elections in the likes of Christchurch and Newbury today, which were lost in the 1990s. It depends not just on how many by-elections happen, but on where they happen. Worth saying that many by-elections in recent years came about through resignation, and presumably that can mostly be avoided if necessary through carrots and sticks.0 -
I'm not sure I'm going to take lectures on what's disgusting, or not, from a poster who posts about burning funeral invitations from two recently deceased individuals whom he believed to be Leavers.Sean_F said:
Have you asked them whether they find their work "disgusting?"Dura_Ace said:
They are not "girls" they are women.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
And presenting them as a notional prize in a sporting event is a disgusting anachronism that can't last much longer.0 -
Here in rural Oxfordshire, with few of Camden's problems, £1,600 is a typical band D. £688 is the outlier, not £1,417.CarlottaVance said:
Band D 2017/18:El_Capitano said:
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.CarlottaVance said:
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Westminster: £688
Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....0 -
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.Charles said:
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.TheScreamingEagles said:
It was Boris as Chairman of TfL.CarlottaVance said:
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:TheScreamingEagles said:
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28570436
And I think 'anti-gay' might be a more accurate description than 'Christian'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25909961
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality-1 -
No it doesn't apply alike, since the first sentence is related to the one about retirement.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure your first sentence does - those factors will apply (post-1997) more-or-less to Tories and Labour MPs alike. Your point about willingness to retire is a good one.Casino_Royale said:
My first sentence does.david_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
If life-expectancy increases then that will reduce morbidity at a certain age, but in the long-run we all have a morbidity rate of 100%. You need to combine the two factors.
Increasing life expectancy will reduce the morbidity rate in office of those who retire dramatically more than those who don't.0 -
Yes, but there are also many more Tory MPs to Labour MPs, and they will tend to come from more marginal seats, and so be younger. Remember: the Tories only had 198 MPs up to 2010 and there's been a huge turnover within, and on top, of that number since then.david_herdson said:
I'm not sure your first sentence does - those factors will apply (post-1997) more-or-less to Tories and Labour MPs alike. Your point about willingness to retire is a good one.Casino_Royale said:
My first sentence does.david_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
By contrast, Labour held onto well over 200 MPs in its core industrial heartlands in old WWC areas throughout that whole period, many of whom were older men who might have had more complex and chronic conditions from their working days, so the turnover has been less.0 -
Madrid said they wouldn’t give Catalonia any power back if they didrcs1000 said:I don't know if anyone's noticed, but in Spain, the Catalan parliament has decided not to decide on re-electing Puigdemont as leader. The vote has been postponed - with no new date set - which leaves Catalonia without a leader.
Question is whether they had over to Catalan government without a leader or use as an excuse to keep it in central hands0 -
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.0 -
You think Labour should campaign on increasing Council Tax?El_Capitano said:
Here in rural Oxfordshire, with few of Camden's problems, £1,600 is a typical band D. £688 is the outlier, not £1,417.CarlottaVance said:
Band D 2017/18:El_Capitano said:
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.CarlottaVance said:
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?HHemmelig said:
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.HYUFD said:
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)HHemmelig said:
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.stodge said:
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.CarlottaVance said:May should stay leader (net):
GB: +7
London: -5
South: +14
Midlands: +6
North: +5
Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Westminster: £688
Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....0 -
To vote in the Commons they have to 'swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.'Barnesian said:
They don't need to sit to vote in the lobby.Sean_F said:
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.Barnesian said:
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?TheKingofLangley said:
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...rottenborough said:
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?justin124 said:
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.HYUFD said:Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
Which, if you believe that you were elected to take your constituents away from allegience to et etc is a bit difficult.
Over the years one or two mainland MP's have crossed their fingers behind their backs, but at least SF are above such childish tricks.0 -
Pope Francis is Argentine not EuropeanCasino_Royale said:
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.0 -
Many Labour MPs have a principled objection to going to the Lords. Only some swallow their previous opposition, like Prescott and Hattersley.Casino_Royale said:
My first sentence does.david_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I think a more compelling reason is that the average Tory MP, often after a spell as a mid ranking minister, can usually retire in middle age to a comfortable directorship or two. Think Willetts or Pickles and there are dozens more similar examples. Labour MPs can't easily get back into teaching, social work or race relations advising at age 55, and it wouldn't pay nearly as well as the MP salary they've gotten used to.
It wasn't unusual for Labour MPs of previous generations to die in poverty, even famous ones like Walter Harrison (dep. chief whip in the Callaghan govt).0 -
I suspect not, actually. Because it wouldn't be a done deal. Imagine how it looks if they swear and then lose a border poll.Dura_Ace said:
If they got a sniff of a 32 county republic they'd pucker up as required.Mortimer said:
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?0 -
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GEwilliamglenn said:
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.Scott_P said:@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
0 -
That has the making of a pub quiz question.TGOHF said:
Also Michael Hutchence of INXS....TheScreamingEagles said:I feel this generation are missing out.
It was only when I got to university, some four years after the event, that someone finally explained to me why Stephen Milligan died with an orange in his mouth.0 -
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.HYUFD said:
Pope Francis is Argentine not EuropeanCasino_Royale said:
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.0 -
Those are all good points.HHemmelig said:
Many Labour MPs have a principled objection to going to the Lords. Only some swallow their previous opposition, like Prescott and Hattersley.Casino_Royale said:
My first sentence does.david_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I think a more compelling reason is that the average Tory MP, often after a spell as a mid ranking minister, can usually retire in middle age to a comfortable directorship or two. Think Willetts or Pickles and there are dozens more similar examples. Labour MPs can't easily get back into teaching, social work or race relations advising at age 55, and it wouldn't pay nearly as well as the MP salary they've gotten used to.
It wasn't unusual for Labour MPs of previous generations to die in poverty, even famous ones like Walter Harrison (dep. chief whip in the Callaghan govt).0 -
But he’s the Bishop of Rome.HYUFD said:
Pope Francis is Argentine not EuropeanCasino_Royale said:
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
Ergo CR’s point is spot on.0 -
What's going on now?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/9583205837412474890 -
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic ChurchCasino_Royale said:
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.HYUFD said:
Pope Francis is Argentine not EuropeanCasino_Royale said:
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.0 -
And some Lab MPs will probably back it too, either because they themselves are Leavers or because they can live with the deal and are worried about the leap in the dark that rejecting it would represent.Charles said:
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GEwilliamglenn said:
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.Scott_P said:@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
0 -
You do know that the EZ is still in full on QE?williamglenn said:
I suppose this is old news?CarlottaVance said:That's the Evening Standard front page sorted. Not.
https://twitter.com/Rupert_Seggins/status/9582817783552327680 -
-
Yet the House of Lords is the upper house of the UK, so not that logical.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.0 -
-
That might have been the case in the past. These days, there's a much greater overlap in the social backgrounds of MPs, and those retiring in their 60s after 20+ years in the House have got very decent pensions to fall back on, leaving aside any other income they pick up.HHemmelig said:
Many Labour MPs have a principled objection to going to the Lords. Only some swallow their previous opposition, like Prescott and Hattersley.Casino_Royale said:
My first sentence does.david_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I think a more compelling reason is that the average Tory MP, often after a spell as a mid ranking minister, can usually retire in middle age to a comfortable directorship or two. Think Willetts or Pickles and there are dozens more similar examples. Labour MPs can't easily get back into teaching, social work or race relations advising at age 55, and it wouldn't pay nearly as well as the MP salary they've gotten used to.
It wasn't unusual for Labour MPs of previous generations to die in poverty, even famous ones like Walter Harrison (dep. chief whip in the Callaghan govt).0 -
I like HYUFD, and he is an asset to this site, and at the same time I suspect this will be yet another of example of him being unable to admit he was wrong.TheScreamingEagles said:
But he’s the Bishop of Rome.HYUFD said:
Pope Francis is Argentine not EuropeanCasino_Royale said:
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
Ergo CR’s point is spot on.
So, I'm fully expecting a dead cat or a squirrel.0 -
Or possibly some informal pairing going on. I said before that I’m expecting to see a photo of Ken Clarke and Kate Hoey sat on the Terrace with G&Ts in hand as the vote goes down.david_herdson said:
And some Lab MPs will probably back it too, either because they themselves are Leavers or because they can live with the deal and are worried about the leap in the dark that rejecting it would represent.Charles said:
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GEwilliamglenn said:
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.Scott_P said:@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
0 -
Ha! There we have itHYUFD said:
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic ChurchCasino_Royale said:
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.HYUFD said:
Pope Francis is Argentine not EuropeanCasino_Royale said:
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
-1 -
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/958321500246953985
Life comes at you fast etc.
https://twitter.com/leomiklasz/status/9582641022327480320 -
I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years olderdavid_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
0 -
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.calum said:0 -
Ken's will be a pint!Sandpit said:
Or possibly some informal pairing going on. I said before that I’m expecting to see a photo of Ken Clarke and Kate Hoey sat on the Terrace with G&Ts in hand as the vote goes down.david_herdson said:
And some Lab MPs will probably back it too, either because they themselves are Leavers or because they can live with the deal and are worried about the leap in the dark that rejecting it would represent.Charles said:
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GEwilliamglenn said:
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.Scott_P said:@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
0 -
The ONS confirmed growth at 1.8%, not sure where 1.5% comes from.Charles said:
You do know that the EZ is still in full on QE?williamglenn said:
I suppose this is old news?CarlottaVance said:That's the Evening Standard front page sorted. Not.
https://twitter.com/Rupert_Seggins/status/958281778355232768
I think US growth is at 2.3% as well actually, but because they report their figures differently it is more difficult to check.0 -
I don't think so. The 1997 rout would presumably have reduced the average age of Labour MPs not increased it. In fact most if not all of those I can think of who have died as MPs were MPs prior to 1997.Charles said:
I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years olderdavid_herdson said:
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.Casino_Royale said:On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
If anything the rout would have contributed but in the opposite direction - not by introducing a lot of Labour MPs but by removing many Tory MPs who may have otherwise remained in the Commons and later died.0 -
Do share. It’s been decades since I read the Book of KingsSean_F said:
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.Charles said:
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.TheScreamingEagles said:
It was Boris as Chairman of TfL.CarlottaVance said:
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:TheScreamingEagles said:
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28570436
And I think 'anti-gay' might be a more accurate description than 'Christian'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25909961
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality0 -
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EECCasino_Royale said:
Ha! There we have itHYUFD said:
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic ChurchCasino_Royale said:
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.HYUFD said:
Pope Francis is Argentine not EuropeanCasino_Royale said:
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.david_herdson said:
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.brendan16 said:
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.TheScreamingEagles said:
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.0 -
We surely ask our representatives to speak the truth to us about our future economic arrangements.ExiledInScotland said:
Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide. End of. Steve Baker is entitled to demolish guidance material if he wishes.calum said:
All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.0
