Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the other election in Copeland on GE2015 day voters rejecte
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the other election in Copeland on GE2015 day voters rejected both LAB and CON. A by-election pointer?
With the big Westminster by-election in 2017 set to be the Cumbrian seat of Copeland currently held by Labour it is worth looking at another recent election in the area to get a sense of the voting patterns in the area.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Gloomy prognosis for Europe in 2017:
In 2016, the decision by the British to quit the European Union has robbed Europe of a member state that had a long tradition and experience in security, intelligence-gathering and defense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/12/27/a-weakened-europe-isnt-prepared-for-what-2017-may-bring
Can anyone with some local knowledge fill us in about this local independent mayor - what are his policies and is there any chance of him or one of his supporters standing in the by-election?
There's a price of 70 on Betfair for any other than Con, Lab, UKIP, LD and Green to win.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28056513/market?marketId=1.128848952
It also makes the good point that British intelligence will be a card to keep up our sleeves as we negotiate the EU exit. Given that the EU bureaucracy want to take over intelligence operations from the nation states of Europe, we can offer them our continuing support in such matters.
EU military spending is also a great place the hide fiscal transfers that everyone knows the Eurozone needs but nobody knows how to sell to northern voters. The security challenges are at the periphery, and if you want to hire people to get shot by the Russians for you, it's more cost-effective to do it where life is cheapest.
As for intelligence and military help, it's definitely something the British have that the rest of the EU wants. I'm not sure exactly how you'd fit it into a deal, though. It works as an unspoken quid-pro-quo, but you can't hide the benefits to the other member states too well or you won't be able to get the deal through their parliaments.
As you say, nothing ever happens quickly at EU level, which is why I think an EU Army would be little more than another layer of brass hats who endlessly procrastinate any actions. That said, there's definitely an incentive to use such an organisation as a cover for targeting fiscal transfers to areas of relative decline in eastern and Southern Europe, so it will probably happen eventually, even if I can't see many young Poles signing up to fight for Germany and JC Drunker.
A good start would be to enhance co-operation on intelligence and security matters, and here the British can show their worth, in or out of the EU political structures. The work done by GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 can't be easily taught to others, it comes from nearly a century of experience, but it can certainly be sold to the EU governments as critically important to them. As an example it's well known that the British are well embedded in my part of the world, for historic reasons, assisting local governments and providing invaluable intelligence to the whole Western world. I'd wager there's probably a lot already going on behind the scenes in this area now, in Europe, that we will never know about.
Also, of course, the Americans, from whom we gain so much in intelligence matters, might look askance at such arrangements. Not sure if they would, but it's certainly a consideration.
Mr. Sandpit, it's my understanding we've limited the sharing of intelligence with the Germans because it simply ends up in the wrong hands.
I would think that the British sharing of information with the EU and its governments would be discussing suspects and targets, rather than the more detailed sharing of assets that happens under Five Eyes - whilest also working to train the Europeans to run their own operations. But yes, it's diplomatically a very sensitive area and needs to be done carefully.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/camerons-cronies-backlash-nominated-peers-could-have-prove-have/
Lord Bew, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told The Telegraph the idea of putting political appointments through rigorous interviews should be considered.
The crossbench peer said his committee was “very interested” in tighter safeguards to ensure that only those suitable to enter the House of Lords are picked.
Hell, the sitting MP isn't going to resign for another month, and the by-election could be four months away yet, on May 4th.
I think it's a quiet time between now and the A50 court judgement, after which it will be non-stop Brexit for the next two years!
By the way, Joe Saward's blog is doing a daily F1 story over the closed season. Today's is that the 1981 Monaco GP was postponed by an hour as it was raining - not on the track, but in the tunnel!
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/
*sighs* Bit irked at myself for only backing Bottas to be top 3 rather than for the seat. Ah well.
Mr. Observer, Defence, like power generation, seems to be an area where all the major parties are ****ing terrible.
A. Untrue; or
B. A puff piece for the UK defence industry.
I'd take the latter here (should have bought BAE, no currency risk).
There's plenty of MoD savings to be found if they look in the right places.
What the UK has to offer is firstly GCHQ and secondly the shared intelligence with the US that this has access to. A problem is clearly going to be the extent to which GCHQ intelligence comes from, well spying, on EU internet and telephony services. Are the Europeans going to be keen for that to happen and even facilitate it or are they going to seek to harden their systems to make it more difficult?
It is in our interests that Europe is not a safe haven for terrorists. It is in their interests to have access to the sort of intelligence that GCHQ can provide. But will they tolerate it once we are out?
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/corbyn-hits-back-after-obama-suggests-labour-is-disintegrating/ar-BBxCbQW?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp
My fear about "More EU" in defence and intelligence is that there will be hundreds of talking shops but few decisions made, and little actual capability in relation to the money spent - which will be in a top-heavy management and board structures to match the various EU institutions, rather than investing in assets as seen in smaller countries such as the UK and Israel.
It'll be like when an early Eastern Emperor reduced the number of men in a legion to just 1,000, so that the roll call of legions sounded more impressive.
I suspect he will do the lecture circuit for a few years, write his memoir and retire in a similar way to Sir John Major. It will be interesting to see what's in store for Cameron in the NY Honours, that might give us an indication of how he sees his future public life.
I did wonder at some of the outgoing PM's awards, but, to be fair to him, given that "Prime Minister's Resignation Honours" exist, who did we expect them to be given to? They exist purely to reward those whom the outgoing PM wishes to thank officially for contributing to his time in office. One can argue whether that's a good thing or bad though, or whether people contribute (especially party donors contributing financially) in the expectation of an Honour down the line.
Personally I'm in favour of reducing the number of Honours given out, but would rebalance them in favour of those who have genuinely achieved something extraordinary in life, to scientists and athletes rather than party donors and SpAds.
We know how to spoil PBers during the Winterval period.
The people making the cuts are those in head office and funnily enough they have not considered cutting themselves the priority. The failure to tackle this shambles is one of the reasons I look a little askance when people claim Hammond is competent. He did not grasp this thistle at all.
How it will affect the voting I have no idea. The deadline for submissions is early January.
Military pensions are AIUI now going to be counted in the 2% figure, so hopefully that sort of culture will start to change.
One of the reasons he quit as an MP was he didn't want to vote regularly against his successor/against the only manifesto the Tories have won a majority in the last 20 odd years.
The only honour he will receive in the future is the Order of the Garter, but he's got two people ahead of him on that front, and membership of that order is restricted to a couple of dozen.
They get and train the very best and they unerringly know where to put their money. The people move on but the standards have been set. If any government decides to emasculate the organisation it's effect will appear some years down the line and even the likes of Hollywood will be the poorer for it.
Conservative Defence Secretaries have been hacking away at the armed forces since Mrs Thatcher's government at least, and the cuts will hit our front lines because they always do, and because no amount of messing around with cheaper wines at mess dinners will save more than peanuts.
However, of the current Members, 64 was the youngest age on appointment - David Cameron is only 50.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Knights_and_Ladies_of_the_Garter
Although there are plans to cut them we currently have in excess of 200 brigadiers and generals. That really should be plenty for an army of 500K, not 82K. These are the current plans: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30962007 They do not strike me as nearly drastic enough in respect of the senior officers.
What would be interesting to know is how Starkie's second preferences split between the two other candidates. If the Tory had sneaked second, Labour could well have won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRVL
Nuclear weapons are only a small part of the budget.
With an army of 82,000 you should only need about 30 officers at that level.
Edit, there was a lieutenant colonel killed in Afghanistan. Rupert Thorneloe
There's an awful lot of future tense in that article. Not happening any time soon!
The last conventional death in action I reckon is William Gott during WW2
No need for the 90% of what they do that can be duplicated by commercial broadcasters though, as Top Gear are finding out.
Not sure the British & German intelligence services are talking to each other much:
https://www.rt.com/uk/370547-german-spies-mi6-gchq/
"Which is why it should be freed from government control and the consequent management timidity. "
And then it would be like ITV or Sky or it's various competitors. Cut corners all the way down the line until you sit the focus puller on a supermarket trolly because setting up a complex track takes too long and they don't have the budget.
David Evershed.
Absolutely but everyone recognises the BBC's brilliance on wildlife. In a drama it's the 1001 little details that no one really notices because the story is essentially the same but in one instance it's a Rolls Royce in the other a Trabant.
His few posts certainly suggest he has a good knowledge of the Conservatives and of electoral processes.
David Suchet says hello.
"Dr Who on the other hand was utter utter s##t, with embarrassingly bad VFX."
I've never watched it and can't imagine why anyone does. You'd be doing the BBC a favour if you didn't. They could move on....
Not my choice, family and Christmas. But the response from family and guests was universal my god that was absolute utter shite (even among Dr Who fans).
I believe the armed forces are struggling to recruit and retain people. Not wholly for the reasons you give but hey are certainly part of the story.
The RN/RFA seems to be in desperate straights in this regard with ships tied up alongside because they do not have enough people with the essential skills to crew them. One of the big problems for the RN is that its base numbers have been cut too far and so sailors are spending more and more time at sea. That is fine when you are young, single rating (its what you joined for after all) but not so good for senior rates in their thirties with wives and children to consider and it is those senior chaps, particularly in the engineering branches, that are vital to keep a ship functioning let alone fighting.
Conversely, one of the problems with army recruiting is that there is no reasonable prospect of any actual action, unless you are in the special forces. Army recruiting fell of a cliff when we pulled out of Afghanistan. Some people struggle with this, but most squaddies join for the adventure and, whilst life in garrison towns can be violent (Catterick on a Saturday night used to be good for a fight), it is not adventurous. I have even read about people who have been in the parachute regiment for a couple of years, but have yet to make a parachute jump.
I am not sure what the situation with the Crabs is, but there is one poster on this site who was a fairly senior officer in Crab Air and chucked his hand early in disgust. I'll not speak for him.
Add to the above Cameron's complete failure to follow through on his pre-2010 promises in terms of conditions of service (especially housing), the continuous cuts, the false accounting, IHat investigations (and now even the PSNI going after blokes for events forty years ago whilst the PIRA fellows have immunity - don't bother knocking on my door, I won't be able to remember a thing), it is a wonder morale has not collapsed and that recruiting remains as high as it is.
The reality now is much worse than the comedy of 30 years ago.