politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East

https://twitter.com/thetimesscot/status/993886998539767808

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk said:

And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.
And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.

I bet you chumley-warner who is getting angry about Peterson didn't bat an eyelid ken Livingstone.

Well they are different people so he might well have different views on their suitability to be invited!

Doubtless had Livingstone been uninvited - you would have been decrying the ban on a former mayor of London speaking at the Oxford Union?

It is about consistency....Peterson has become this weird hate figure among some that has to be silenced. If you are going to complain on the grounds of intellectual honesty of invitees you better be complaining about all that display those traits.

I would actually welcome the opportunity to watch red ken try and explain his views under proper challenge.

From a recent article:

"Peterson is an apologist for a set of beliefs that we once took for granted but now require an articulate defence, such as: Free speech is an essential value; perfect equality inevitably conflicts with individual freedom; one should be cautious before attempting to reengineer social institutions that appear to be working; men and women are, in certain quantifiable respects, different. His life advice concerns the necessity to defer gratification, face up to the trials of life with equanimity, take responsibility for one’s own choices, and struggle against the temptation to grow resentful. How such traditional values came to be portrayed as a danger adjacent to Nazism is one of the puzzles of our time."

There's something right on the nose about the debate surrounding the Professor in that summary.

Torby_Fennel said:

I don't know if the Moderators have been made aware of this but the comments are only updating in real time for those who are actually signed in. If not signed in then the comments are lagging about 90 minutes behind time. Unless it's only me... anyway, as I said, fine if signed in but not if I'm not.

I noted the same issue at the weekend.

Fun article:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/may/07/get-your-hands-off-my-double-entendres-is-the-smutty-pun-now-under-attack-carry-on-great-british-bake-off

Gardenwalker said:

Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

I think the Tories would much rather Corbyn stayed in place.

Stand by your bets:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

May as well have a Lords vote on the electorate getting things wrong and proving themselves unworthy of being entrusted with deciding how the country is run...

Looks like the Greens overtook the LDs in the Lewisham East wards last Thursday so the yellows have a lot of ground to make up if they are to win

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/993816959451049984

I'm glad Brexit has opened the eyes of those on the right about much needed reform of the upper chamber.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993873107210395648

And again The Lords show their total disconnect from reality. It will not be up to the Lords or the Commons whether we are allowed to participate in EU programmes after we leave. It will be up to the EU.

Anyone who thinks these amendments are anything other than an attempt by the Lords to stop Brexit completely is not living in the real world.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

Does it? I thought it was a two year limit.

I understand the the LDs are selecting their Lewisham candidate this weekend and are working on a election day of June 7 or 14

Richard_Tyndall said:

And again The Lords show their total disconnect from reality. It will not be up to the Lords or the Commons whether we are allowed to participate in EU programmes after we leave. It will be up to the EU.

Paraphrasing: After we leave, the EU will take back control, not the British parliament.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993873107210395648

And again The Lords show their total disconnect from reality. It will not be up to the Lords or the Commons whether we are allowed to participate in EU programmes after we leave. It will be up to the EU.

Anyone who thinks these amendments are anything other than an attempt by the Lords to stop Brexit completely is not living in the real world.

If i was a democratic remainer,I would be embarrassed with the Lord's and the real motives.

MikeSmithson said:

I understand the the LDs are selecting their Lewisham candidate this weekend and are working on a election day of June 7 or 14

Clegg?

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

A 50 provides that the leaving date is the one stipulated in the Withdrawal agreement, or in default of that, two years after serving Notice. The deadline can only be extended with the unanimous agreement of all member states. The House of Lords can't determine the withdrawal date.

Of course not, but it can unbind an executive that was seeking to bind its own hands.

Sigh, another almost certainly dull by-election. It's not like Labour are doing really badly and therefore people might be tempted to abandon them en masse.

Let's hope the LDs can at least make Labour work for it a bit though, spice things up.

Wild, unicorn-level, blow politics up thought: LibDems select Dave Miliband to run in Lewisham.

Scott_P said:

@JournoStephen: Labour, a party where there's literally no room for Jews. https://twitter.com/JewishLabour/status/993881190879948800

Well clearly you need to treat both sides in the debate equally... otherwise it wouldn’t be a fair process...

GIN1138 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...

the dust has not settled since the brexit vote.

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jonwalker121/status/993876986769629184

The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.

But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)

I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.

Reading your views on Brexit from an apparently sensible person is an increasingly surreal experience.

There is no majority in parliament or the country for anything which disrupts cross-border trade with our neighbours, and in the case of Northern Ireland we have a political and moral obligation to ensure it does not happen. These practical realities will determine where we end up far more than anyone's notions about protecting the 'cause of Brexit'.

Parliament does not have a say in it (regrettably). Once they had voted to allow Article 50 to be enacted they lost control over the whole process bar accepting or rejecting the final deal.

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

A 50 provides that the leaving date is the one stipulated in the Withdrawal agreement, or in default of that, two years after serving Notice. The deadline can only be extended with the unanimous agreement of all member states. The House of Lords can't determine the withdrawal date.

Perhaps I don't understand diplomacy and treaty draftsmanship, but having looked at the text of Article 50 it seems to me that it would be possible for the withdrawal agreement to specify a withdrawal date beyond the two year timescale.

Torby_Fennel said:

I don't know if the Moderators have been made aware of this but the comments are only updating in real time for those who are actually signed in. If not signed in then the comments are lagging about 90 minutes behind time (by that I mean that at 5pm I could only see comments posted up to 3:27pm when I wasn't signed in). Unless it's only me... anyway, as I said, fine if signed in but not if I'm not.

I have had the same issue over the last few days but even when signed in. I have needed to make a comment to anchor the comments thread.

Pulpstar said:

I'm glad Brexit has opened the eyes of those on the right about much needed reform of the upper chamber.

Hear, hear. Time to repeal the HoL Act 1999.

TM's portrait to be reinstated at the School of Geography and the Environment, Guido reports.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

And again The Lords show their total disconnect from reality. It will not be up to the Lords or the Commons whether we are allowed to participate in EU programmes after we leave. It will be up to the EU.

Paraphrasing: After we leave, the EU will take back control, not the British parliament.

Nope. After we leave the EU will control their own institutions and we will control ours. I see you need some lessons in basic comprehension this evening.

RobD said:

sealo0 said:

Torby_Fennel said:

I don't know if the Moderators have been made aware of this but the comments are only updating in real time for those who are actually signed in. If not signed in then the comments are lagging about 90 minutes behind time (by that I mean that at 5pm I could only see comments posted up to 3:27pm when I wasn't signed in). Unless it's only me... anyway, as I said, fine if signed in but not if I'm not.

It's the same on an Ipad Signing in does not help. System will not update at all only when you open the page again but it's still 60 to 90 mins behind.

MikeS

I can confirm seeing this behaviour on Chrome on my Mac when logged out. Last post from 90 minutes ago. I'll send TSE a note.

Previously this has much more affected me on IE (at work) than Chrome/Firefox (at home)

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

I understand that quite a lot of the acts that granted independence to former colonies have been repealed as spent. Repealing an act doesn't reset the law to how it was before the repealed act was enacted. For instance, repealing the FTPA would not restore the former royal prerogative to dissolve parliaments; the repealing act would need to specify how parliaments are to be dissolved in future.

nunuone said:

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

Sean_F said:

Sean_F said:

O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..

That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.

So much for going after IDS’ seat.

BTW- thanks for the analysis!

There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-

Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.

That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.

Momentum: winning here!!!

Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:

1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.

2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.

3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.

1) The Tory vote also vote from the 2017 locals to the GE, it was the LD vote which collapsed

2) Not New Labour voters no but voters for current Labour candidates yes

3) That still does not explain the Tory holds in London which have a younger voting demographic

Ha, Netflix kicks the Cannes down the road.

Nemtynakht said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

Stand by your bets:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858

As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.

A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.

A collapse of May looks much more likely than a month ago, but what Tory replacement would be stupid enough to ask for another GE? Sure, they would say they won't run as bad a campaign as last time, but they have no manifesto ready, and it has no guarantee or even strong likelihood that they will do better than last time .

There is a lot of brinkmanship going on - given the statements leaked or outright stated, I don't see how May gets out of this one. She can get some options through parliament, but not without pissing off too many of her own party.

I think May is in serious trouble. Why is she proposing something that the EU think is unworkable? If the Tories got rid of her she would be gone almost immediately and a contest to replace her would run into the summer. The Tories would not call an election again without a manifesto that had been thought about, and the new leader would have cover as calling an election would provide more instability before Brexit?

Do not underestimate back channels there is likely to be some kind of Customs fudge which everyone will wail about and which will prove remarkably similar to what we have today.

Nemtynakht said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

Stand by your bets:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858

As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.

A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.

A collapse of May looks much more likely than a month ago, but what Tory replacement would be stupid enough to ask for another GE? Sure, they would say they won't run as bad a campaign as last time, but they have no manifesto ready, and it has no guarantee or even strong likelihood that they will do better than last time .

There is a lot of brinkmanship going on - given the statements leaked or outright stated, I don't see how May gets out of this one. She can get some options through parliament, but not without pissing off too many of her own party.

I think May is in serious trouble. Why is she proposing something that the EU think is unworkable? If the Tories got rid of her she would be gone almost immediately and a contest to replace her would run into the summer. The Tories would not call an election again without a manifesto that had been thought about, and the new leader would have cover as calling an election would provide more instability before Brexit?

I do struggle to understand quite what she is trying here - I too thought that the EU had said her idea was not acceptable. I get not taking their pronouncements as gospel, but that seems like a non starter, so why choose it as the battle between her and the more strident brexiters? Is it because she thinks she can win this battle, and this a trickier one later?

Pulpstar said:

I'm glad Brexit has opened the eyes of those on the right about much needed reform of the upper chamber.

Not great for important changes to be made off the back of partisan disappointment, but I think all should be able to agree that there is much about the current arrangements that could be improved, so hopefully something good can come of the feeling, if not right away.

Alanbrooke said:

rpjs said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.

No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.

and you think all those happy euro federalists want their biggest pain back ?

The Federalists don't - they want to punish Britain.

But Member States would prefer Britain to remain, and indeed would probably allow it to do so on the basis we had up to 2016, if push came to shove.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Alanbrooke said:

rpjs said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.

No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.

and you think all those happy euro federalists want their biggest pain back ?

The Federalists don't - they want to punish Britain.

But Member States would prefer Britain to remain, and indeed would probably allow it to do so on the basis we had up to 2016, if push came to shove.

you mean the same member states who have done little so far but back the commission

Alanbrooke said:

rpjs said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.

No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.

and you think all those happy euro federalists want their biggest pain back ?

Who knows? I think there might be a lot of value to the project to have the most Eurosceptic country fail to leave: it would render A50 practically moot.

What I'm saying is that legally it seems to me that the withdrawal agreement could consist solely of the words "The United Kingdom will withdraw from the European Union on March 29th, 12,019 CE." Whether that's feasible politically is a different matter!

Alanbrooke said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Alanbrooke said:

rpjs said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.

No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.

and you think all those happy euro federalists want their biggest pain back ?

The Federalists don't - they want to punish Britain.

But Member States would prefer Britain to remain, and indeed would probably allow it to do so on the basis we had up to 2016, if push came to shove.

you mean the same member states who have done little so far but back the commission

And whenever the point is raised that perhaps some member states are more amenable than the commission, ultras point out that the member states are perfectly content to do so, so not likely to do otherwise.

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Nemtynakht said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

Stand by your bets:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858

As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.

A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.

A collapse of May looks much more likely than a month ago, but what Tory replacement would be stupid enough to ask for another GE? Sure, they would say they won't run as bad a campaign as last time, but they have no manifesto ready, and it has no guarantee or even strong likelihood that they will do better than last time .

There is a lot of brinkmanship going on - given the statements leaked or outright stated, I don't see how May gets out of this one. She can get some options through parliament, but not without pissing off too many of her own party.

I think May is in serious trouble. Why is she proposing something that the EU think is unworkable? If the Tories got rid of her she would be gone almost immediately and a contest to replace her would run into the summer. The Tories would not call an election again without a manifesto that had been thought about, and the new leader would have cover as calling an election would provide more instability before Brexit?

Do not underestimate back channels there is likely to be some kind of Customs fudge which everyone will wail about and which will prove remarkably similar to what we have today.

precisely

which is why most of the stuff in the uk media is just nonsense

The deal looks pretty obvious to me. What I don't understand is why anyone is hyping this particular stage up. Cui bono from the suggestion of internecine warfare?

the cynic in me says they agreed all the contentious stuff 2 years ago and are now playing PS4 and drinking beer. The media hype is simply to make people think theyre doing something

rpjs said:

Alanbrooke said:

rpjs said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.

No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.

and you think all those happy euro federalists want their biggest pain back ?

Who knows? I think there might be a lot of value to the project to have the most Eurosceptic country fail to leave: it would render A50 practically moot.

What I'm saying is that legally it seems to me that the withdrawal agreement could consist solely of the words "The United Kingdom will withdraw from the European Union on March 29th, 12,019 CE." Whether that's feasible politically is a different matter!

in the various european websites I trawl Ive detected some twinges of regret but no overwhelming move to have us back

Torby_Fennel said:

I don't know if the Moderators have been made aware of this but the comments are only updating in real time for those who are actually signed in. If not signed in then the comments are lagging about 90 minutes behind time (by that I mean that at 5pm I could only see comments posted up to 3:27pm when I wasn't signed in). Unless it's only me... anyway, as I said, fine if signed in but not if I'm not.

If you are not signed in, then it shows the times using GMT and not BST, which means it *looks* like you are an hour behind, but in fact are not.

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jonwalker121/status/993876986769629184

The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.

But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)

I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.

or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers

you mean the guys who have falsified all their performance data and are causing thousands of premature deaths in this country ?

Ummm... I think VW is about the only auto maker without any major UK presence.

MarkHopkins said:

Torby_Fennel said:

I don't know if the Moderators have been made aware of this but the comments are only updating in real time for those who are actually signed in. If not signed in then the comments are lagging about 90 minutes behind time (by that I mean that at 5pm I could only see comments posted up to 3:27pm when I wasn't signed in). Unless it's only me... anyway, as I said, fine if signed in but not if I'm not.

If you are not signed in, then it shows the times using GMT and not BST, which means it *looks* like you are an hour behind, but in fact are not.

That's not what I've been seeing for a few weeks. Comments appear and disappear; they can be more or less up to date, and then reloading the page 'loses' some. Only intermittently on some PCs, and it seems to occur whether logged in or not. It's very annoying.

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

Stand by your bets:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858

As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.

A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.

There is no way on earth any Tory leader will be calling a general election anytime soon, for starters the polls and local election results confirm we are looking at another hung parliament or Corbyn minority government, not a big Tory victory as they were forecasting this time last year.

Brexiteer and Remainer MPs will also rant and throw their toys out of the pram but at the end of the day none have any enthusiasm for another general election anytime soon and Tory members most certainly do not and short of Ruth Davidson all the polling confirms that no alternative leader would do much better than May and many would do significantly worse than she is doing.

There is also no guarantee that a pure Brexit JRM or Boris led Conservative Party would win a majority. Most people probably would not vote on Brexit alone and in all likelihood we would have another hung parliament and votes in the balance and quite possibly Labour as the largest party and a softer Brexit as a result.

RobD said:

Common sense prevails:

https://order-order.com/2018/05/08/victory-oxford-university-will-put-may-portrait-back/

Common sense or fake news? The new report does not mention a change of mind or confirm that its removal was ever intended to be more than temporary.

JosiasJessop said:

MarkHopkins said:

Torby_Fennel said:

I don't know if the Moderators have been made aware of this but the comments are only updating in real time for those who are actually signed in. If not signed in then the comments are lagging about 90 minutes behind time (by that I mean that at 5pm I could only see comments posted up to 3:27pm when I wasn't signed in). Unless it's only me... anyway, as I said, fine if signed in but not if I'm not.

If you are not signed in, then it shows the times using GMT and not BST, which means it *looks* like you are an hour behind, but in fact are not.

That's not what I've been seeing for a few weeks. Comments appear and disappear; they can be more or less up to date, and then reloading the page 'loses' some. Only intermittently on some PCs, and it seems to occur whether logged in or not. It's very annoying.

That sounds like it might be a load balancing problem where not all the nodes are properly synchronised, so what comments you get depends on which server you hit.

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jonwalker121/status/993876986769629184

The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.

But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)

I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.

or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers

you mean the guys who have falsified all their performance data and are causing thousands of premature deaths in this country ?

Ummm... I think VW is about the only auto maker without any major UK presence.

Bentley, though that's hardly major, but it's not the only one to be caught cheating, simply the biggest.

MikeSmithson said:

I understand the the LDs are selecting their Lewisham candidate this weekend and are working on a election day of June 7 or 14

That coincides with your holiday doesn't it?

Easy Labour hold it is then.

HYUFD said:

nunuone said:

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

Sean_F said:

Sean_F said:

O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..

That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.

So much for going after IDS’ seat.

BTW- thanks for the analysis!

There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-

Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.

That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.

Momentum: winning here!!!

Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:

1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.

2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.

3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.

1) The Tory vote also vote from the 2017 locals to the GE, it was the LD vote which collapsed

2) Not New Labour voters no but voters for current Labour candidates yes

3) That still does not explain the Tory holds in London which have a younger voting demographic

3) huh? Labour made big gains in London.....the labour lead was down from GE 2017 to the locals from 20% to 16% probably down to the older voting population even in London.

chloe said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

Stand by your bets:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858

As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.

A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.

There is no way on earth any Tory leader will be calling a general election anytime soon, for starters the polls and local election results confirm we are looking at another hung parliament or Corbyn minority government, not a big Tory victory as they were forecasting this time last year.

Brexiteer and Remainer MPs will also rant and throw their toys out of the pram but at the end of the day none have any enthusiasm for another general election anytime soon and Tory members most certainly do not and short of Ruth Davidson all the polling confirms that no alternative leader would do much better than May and many would do significantly worse than she is doing.

There is also no guarantee that a pure Brexit JRM or Boris led Conservative Party would win a majority. Most people probably would not vote on Brexit alone and in all likelihood we would have another hung parliament and votes in the balance and quite possibly Labour as the largest party and a softer Brexit as a result.

I assume you missed out the part of the sentence where I said 'and short of Ruth Davidson all the polling confirms that no alternative leader would do much better than May and many would do significantly worse than she is doing.'

Though of course Corbyn would not abandon Brexit even if he has to deal with the LDs in another hung parliament as he needs the Labour Leave voters and the 20% of 2015 UKIP voters who voted Labour in 2017

rpjs said:

Alanbrooke said:

rpjs said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/993888424770891782

Article 50 says what it says. The Lords might just as well try to repeal Indian independence.

Article 50 allows for a different date to be in the withdrawal agreement, and an extension to allow time for a second referendum is very possible.

Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.

No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.

and you think all those happy euro federalists want their biggest pain back ?

Who knows? I think there might be a lot of value to the project to have the most Eurosceptic country fail to leave: it would render A50 practically moot.

What I'm saying is that legally it seems to me that the withdrawal agreement could consist solely of the words "The United Kingdom will withdraw from the European Union on March 29th, 12,019 CE." Whether that's feasible politically is a different matter!

That ship has sailed. The date of withdrawal has already been defined as 2 years from the date Article 50 was triggered. That cannot now be changed without an extension.