If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
On topic, Tories, Labour and LDs have put up candidates in both Epping District seats but only the Tories have put up a full slate for town council
I find it strange that any of the political parties offer candidates for Town /Community Council elections given the very limited powers involved.
Indeed, even with more assets being pushed down to towns and parishes. Round my way towns seem to be party dominated, or entirely local group dominated, with no middle ground, while parishes are almost always still independents.
Because not to equals no Brexit and no seat at the ensuing GE and no Tory party left
Not really true given most Tory MPs have already voted for No Deal and there will still be a few Tory MPs even if the Brexit Party, UKIP and Labour took most of their seats. Though there is a majority for Deal plus Customs Union as the indicative votes suggest
On topic, Tories, Labour and LDs have put up candidates in both Epping District seats but only the Tories have put up a full slate for town council
I find it strange that any of the political parties offer candidates for Town /Community Council elections given the very limited powers involved.
They do at town council as it provides a springboard for district and county, Parish councils though tend to be independent as the district and county village and rural seats are almost always Tory
Because not to equals no Brexit and no seat at the ensuing GE and no Tory party left
And what does it matter to the ERG if we have May's deal or May's deal and a Customs union, they aren't supporting either.
The ERG are utterly irrelevant now, and shes stopped bothering with them. A vpCorbyn backed CU and WA deal passes easily. Most Tories who voted for the WA plus the labour backers of the deal. 400 plus
Because not to equals no Brexit and no seat at the ensuing GE and no Tory party left
And what does it matter to the ERG if we have May's deal or May's deal and a Customs union, they aren't supporting either.
The ERG are utterly irrelevant now, and shes stopped bothering with them. A vpCorbyn backed CU and WA deal passes easily. Most Tories who voted for the WA plus the labour backers of the deal. 400 plus
Any examples of the ERG being deselected by local party members ?
Because not to equals no Brexit and no seat at the ensuing GE and no Tory party left
And what does it matter to the ERG if we have May's deal or May's deal and a Customs union, they aren't supporting either.
The ERG are utterly irrelevant now, and shes stopped bothering with them. A vpCorbyn backed CU and WA deal passes easily. Most Tories who voted for the WA plus the labour backers of the deal. 400 plus
Any examples of the ERG being deselected by local party members ?
makes you think..
Well, I say irrelevant, I mean to a conlab deal passing, not to the future of the Tory party in elections
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
That is pretty much my view as well. Mine is somewhat more extreme to the extent I favour massive decentralisation of power and the EU is pretty much the exact opposite of that.
Doesn't it say something about PB though, that I seem to be the only person on here motivated to vote Leave by immigration control, despite it being the biggest motivator of Leave voters?
Not the only one, though I suspect most leave voters were motivated by both political/sovereignty issues and immigration to a greater or lesser extent. But yes the demographics of PB Leavers seems to tend towards the more liberal end, which is...niche.
Conservatives with hard line Europhile views seem to make up the bulk of the current PB demographic. Outside of parliament that is also a niche market.
Her deal vs Remain might as well be called "The Establishment Stitch Up".To have the option that got 48% of the vote last time vs a portion of the option that got 52%, and that has been widely criticised by the people who campaigned for the 52% winner is so crooked it surely cant even be considered.
It has certainly been mentioned as a possibility, so I imagine it would be under consideration by May. This is, of course, part of the problem with a second referendum - what will the question be? I seriously doubt that (unless a so-called confirmatory vote is appended to a successful Con-Lab agreement) this parliament could agree a question or an electorate.
You seem like a sensible enough bloke, coming on here with your reasonable and well-argued points. What were the key reasons you voted Leave?
[Sorry messed up the quoting!] Thank you! Partly Bennite (though I'm a Tory), in that I don't like that once we (or any nation) agree to a proposed EU policy there is essentially no way of undoing it, partly Washingtonian/Jeffersonian (friendly relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none) and partly pragmatic (we've never signed up to the main political projects of the EU [Schengen and the Euro] and are unlikely to do so and yet the EU is increasingly and understandably focused on the interests of Eurozone members). I don't much like elements of May's WA but I think it gives us the time we need to negotiate some form of free trade agreement with the EU while avoiding thee disruption of no deal.
Why do you see Schengen as more of a political project than the customs union and single market? Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland are in Schengen.
They are all political of course but I would argue that the removal of invisible trade barriers is fundamentally different from the removal of physical borders themselves. I think (though others may correct) that Norway and Switzerland's membership of Schengen is for practical purposes (given that they are surrounded by Schengen countries) just as Ireland's non-membership is practical (because its physical border is with the UK, a non-Schengen country).
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the day after Ireland reunites (which is inevitable now, one way or another, no matter the outcome of Brexit), the Irish government will announce it’s leaving the CTA and applying to join Schengen.
Political Betting, where shades of grey are seen as weakness. Inevitable....
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
Sounds daft from Labour - no parliament can be bound by it's predecessor.
Once the WA is in place we are out. VONC and GE, labour government, negotiate whatever they like
"“Don’t worry about the so-called ‘permanent’ commitments this historically abysmal Cabinet are trying to make on our behalf. They are not ‘permanent’ and a serious government — one not cowed by officials and their bullshit ‘legal advice’ with which they have herded ministers like sheep — will dispense with these commitments and any domestic law enforcing them.”"
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Yes, this is what I was thinking. No hint of a referendum could be explosive for Labour just at the most crucial time. We could be having chaos on Wed-Thurs as a result, rather than any sense of being closer to resolution and preparation for Friday, other than revocation or no-deal.
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Agreed. Even if the attempt would fail how could they not even try to get a referendum? And presumably they'd ask May that if she is so confident it won't pass why not let the Commons vote on it?
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
Sounds daft from Labour - no parliament can be bound by it's predecessor.
Once the WA is in place we are out. VONC and GE, labour government, negotiate whatever they like
Well, I suppose that you won't feel that the backstop is much of an hindrance if you are actively seeking a united Ireland. Probably best just to be rid of NI and the EU as well. So there is a certain logic to Corbyn feeling unbound by something that others regard as vassalage.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
It's good mood music for May's new deal that Mark Francois is losing his shit about it. I think people want to see the awkward squad (probably on both sides) not get what they want.
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Yes, this is what I was thinking. No hint of a referendum could be explosive for Labour just at the most crucial time. We could be having chaos on Wed-Thurs as a result, rather than any sense of being closer to resolution and preparation for Friday, other than revocation or no-deal.
It’s unlikely any deal would be voted on this week. The negotiations will only collapse if they do after the EU had granted an extension .
May needs to say she’s working on a compromise to the EU and a plan to get that extension .
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
I don't recall his comments being as firm as that - more on the lines that LD support could not be 'assumed'. However, matters have developed since mid-January with the sense of chaos much more evident. LD also probably better placed now for any election. I would not say the same about TIG though!
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Yes, this is what I was thinking. No hint of a referendum could be explosive for Labour just at the most crucial time. We could be having chaos on Wed-Thurs as a result, rather than any sense of being closer to resolution and preparation for Friday, other than revocation or no-deal.
It’s unlikely any deal would be voted on this week. The negotiations will only collapse if they do after the EU had granted an extension .
May needs to say she’s working on a compromise to the EU and a plan to get that extension .
Although the EU may not grant a long extension if both major parties are in ferment, about a customs union and lack of a referendum respectively. If Theresa doesn't promise either a referendum or an election, why should they extend for any deal that already looks unviable ? ..
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Refusing to boot the Tories out would be very bad for the SNP - and very helpful for Labour in Scotland.
Breaking: Cross-bench amendment to Cooper-Letwin passes the Lords, providing the PM with more flexibility over an extension
Does that mean more delay when it comes back to the HOC as it has been amended
Depends if they accept it . If yes no delay it gets Royal Consent . Indeed this amendment is co authored by Lord Pannick , who I trust implicitly and has a minimum extension point past May 22. The problem with the original bill is the time constraints .
Let’s say the Commons wants 6 months and the EU say no 9 months May couldn’t agree that and would have to come back to the Commons on Thursday to get their permission , the EU summit would have finished and how do you then quickly agree that with them . Perhaps the EU would agree to something which then needs to be rubber stamped but there’s not a great deal of time to play with .
Thank you for that. Seems sensible for once
You’re welcome. Lord Pannick is the QC who won the Gina Miller case . He’s a brilliant lawyer , I followed that case and read the entire manuscript of proceedings . I know I should get out more !
That case was crucial for our rights and was one of the most important decisions in recent history. Whilst the rabid right wing press was whipping up the hate , they forget to tell readers that if the government had won they could in future use that decision to strip our rights in domestic law by Royal Perogative .
Good lawyer, bad client.
Always the way
To you maybe, Gina Miller is an absolute heroine to me .
She is certainly not a heroine. It was plain for all to see from the very start that she had no real interest in asserting the rights of Parliament as she claimed. She merely wanted to stop Brexit by whatever means possible.
The result that Parliament gained further control and Royal Prerogative was diminished was great but I don't doubt for a second that if the situation had been reversed and it was Parliament that was in favour of Brexit against a Remainer executive she would have been fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of Parliament.
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Yes, this is what I was thinking. No hint of a referendum could be explosive for Labour just at the most crucial time. We could be having chaos on Wed-Thurs as a result, rather than any sense of being closer to resolution and preparation for Friday, other than revocation or no-deal.
It’s unlikely any deal would be voted on this week. The negotiations will only collapse if they do after the EU had granted an extension .
May needs to say she’s working on a compromise to the EU and a plan to get that extension .
Although the EU may not grant a long extension if both major parties are in ferment, about a customs union and lack of a referendum respectively. If Theresa doesn't promise a referendum or an election respectively, why should they extend for any deal that already looks unviable ? ..
Well quite.
Maybe she's promised to stay on as PM - that might have been Corbyn's demand.
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Refusing to boot the Tories out would be very bad for the SNP - and very helpful for Labour in Scotland.
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Yes, this is what I was thinking. No hint of a referendum could be explosive for Labour just at the most crucial time. We could be having chaos on Wed-Thurs as a result, rather than any sense of being closer to resolution and preparation for Friday, other than revocation or no-deal.
It’s unlikely any deal would be voted on this week. The negotiations will only collapse if they do after the EU had granted an extension .
May needs to say she’s working on a compromise to the EU and a plan to get that extension .
Although the EU may not grant a long extension if both major parties are in ferment, about a customs union and lack of a referendum respectively. If Theresa doesn't promise a referendum or an election respectively, why should they extend for any deal that already looks unviable ? ..
Well quite.
Maybe she's promised to stay on as PM - that might have been Corbyn's demand.
Once the WA is signed into law everything is ok the table. Corbyn is going to get absolutely buggered. I'll be amazed if anything is signed, given that the WA is the binding part of any deal and it isn't amendable.
It’s not a big deal for May to accept a vote in the Commons for a second vote . It won’t get through anyway . Labour can say they tried . Labour MPs then can vote for the Labour Tory deal .
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
Yes, this is what I was thinking. No hint of a referendum could be explosive for Labour just at the most crucial time. We could be having chaos on Wed-Thurs as a result, rather than any sense of being closer to resolution and preparation for Friday, other than revocation or no-deal.
It’s unlikely any deal would be voted on this week. The negotiations will only collapse if they do after the EU had granted an extension .
May needs to say she’s working on a compromise to the EU and a plan to get that extension .
Although the EU may not grant a long extension if both major parties are in ferment, about a customs union and lack of a referendum respectively. If Theresa doesn't promise a referendum or an election respectively, why should they extend for any deal that already looks unviable ? ..
Well quite.
Maybe she's promised to stay on as PM - that might have been Corbyn's demand.
Once the WA is signed into law everything is ok the table. Corbyn is going to get absolutely buggered. I'll be amazed if anything is signed, given that the WA is the binding part of any deal and it isn't amendable.
It's hard to see anything being agreed before the European elections. There's too much momentum now, and people will have their say.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Further episode today, not sure if it's been mentioned:
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Let's facilitate a corbyn government to show how cross we are
Quite. Fair play to the Tiggers they finally felt lines had been crossed that could not be uncrossed, the rest just seem to love posturing every few months to assure themselves they are still good guys.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
I don't recall his comments being as firm as that - more on the lines that LD support could not be 'assumed'. However, matters have developed since mid-January with the sense of chaos much more evident. LD also probably better placed now for any election. I would not say the same about TIG though!
Agreed, that's how I recall the comments too. It seemed more a warning not to play silly buggers too much, but it has been several months and would they really say no? For what reason, that they don't like rerunning votes?
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Refusing to boot the Tories out would be very bad for the SNP - and very helpful for Labour in Scotland.
Corbyn is even more toxic than the Tories.
I disagree . Sadly in some ways , I do not get much sense that the Anti - Semitism row switches many votes beyond a few seats. Also Corbyn is not more toxic with the left of centre voters the LDs lost in droves in 2015. Every opportunity to shed the 'Tories Little Helpers' label will need to be taken.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Further episode today, not sure if it's been mentioned:
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
Why not one tenth every six month? Or, even better, one twentieth every three months?
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Further episode today, not sure if it's been mentioned:
I don't know what's worse, what he said or the dumbass excuse he came up with that even Grant Shapps would blush at.
Unwise to say it in such terms, but a dislike of gypsies/travellers cuts across the political spectrum. It’s hardly an unpopular opinion.
While I can remember certain - discussions - on that theme here on PB, I don't recall anyone saying that they should be the victims of genocide, or of supporting the twentieth century's second or third worst mass murderer in his campaigns of mass murder.
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
They have the ability to limit the amount of debate, and have had ones that go on for bloody months!?
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
Why not one tenth every six month? Or, even better, one twentieth every three months?
Annual parliaments is the only outstanding demand of the Peoples Charter of the 1840s.
Electing 130 seats each May would be a step that way, and keep 5 year terms. A reasonable compromise.
I quote, “the Conservatives are on a demographic conveyor belt to oblivion.”
Bleak.
Yet if you look at the attitudes the young have, they are much more pro-Thatcherite than their older compatriots. The Conservative party problem seems to be one of branding, not substance.
Obviously. Corbyn doesn't want one. And they think they can get this through and then no confidence the government
They will not get LD or SNP support for a VONC if they block a referendum though
I don't think that follows. The SNP - in particular - would not wish to be seen to be extending the life of a Tory Government. Post -Coalition I would expect the LibDems to take the same view - particularly as some polls suggest the possibility of recovering some seats lost to the Tories in 2015.
Cable was clear he would not back a further VONC going forward for the time being but focus on getting EUref2 or revoke
Correct. Neither the LDs or the SNP would take step that could lead to Corbyn becoming PM. It is part of the price LAB pays for failing to get on top of antisemitism.
Further episode today, not sure if it's been mentioned:
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Only because the Tories went loony and promised to take away the triple lock and winter fuel allowance... a fecking bonkers idea.. lucky she wasn't ousted.
I quote, “the Conservatives are on a demographic conveyor belt to oblivion.”
Bleak.
Yet if you look at the attitudes the young have, they are much more pro-Thatcherite than their older compatriots. The Conservative party problem seems to be one of branding, not substance.
In terms of individualism, but not in terms of attitudes to international co-operation, the environment or the EU, for instance.
Also a historically unprecedented, and arguably contradicting mix of things like greater support for economic and cultural individualism and support for state nationalisation of utilities and public services.
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Only because the Tories went loony and promised to take away the triple lock and winter fuel allowance... a fecking bonkers idea.. lucky she wasn't ousted.
They assumed they would win and thus could afford to be honest about dropping policies like that and so not have to u-turn on them later.
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
Why not one tenth every six month? Or, even better, one twentieth every three months?
Annual parliaments is the only outstanding demand of the Peoples Charter of the 1840s.
Electing 130 seats each May would be a step that way, and keep 5 year terms. A reasonable compromise.
I'm not sure I agree. I think it would actually lead to more short-termism as politicians looked to win an election every May, so they would try to avoid unpopular decisions entirely rather than trying to time them at the most propitious moment of the cycle. It would also be quite expensive.
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Only because the Tories went loony and promised to take away the triple lock and winter fuel allowance... a fecking bonkers idea.. lucky she wasn't ousted.
Must... resist... temptation to... post my.... Twitter graphs...
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Under FPTP, seats matter, not percentage.
Quite and a similar % to brown 2010 would have seen Labour on 200 seats or fewer
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Commons considers Lords' mendments. If accepted, Bill goes for Royal Assent. If rejected, Bill goes back to Lords, who decide whether to accept Commons' rejection of its amendments (which is usual) or to insist on the amendments, in which it goes back to the Commons to reconsider. In theory a ping-pong effect could occur (but I have a feeling at the back of my mind that Joint Committe of the Commons and Lords can be appointed to break any jog-jam).
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Accepted on the nod by commons?
The 3rd reading passed 312-311. A nod seems ambitious.
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
Why not one tenth every six month? Or, even better, one twentieth every three months?
Annual parliaments is the only outstanding demand of the Peoples Charter of the 1840s.
Electing 130 seats each May would be a step that way, and keep 5 year terms. A reasonable compromise.
I'm not sure I agree. I think it would actually lead to more short-termism as politicians looked to win an election every May, so they would try to avoid unpopular decisions entirely rather than trying to time them at the most propitious moment of the cycle. It would also be quite expensive.
Perhaps they could be by regional bocks. Celtic Britain 1 year, Midlands the next, London and SE one year etc. It would allow some concentration of campaigning, and focus on important issues peripheral in most GE.
The US Senate is elected biannually for 6 year terms, this is a similar mid terms type concept.
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Accepted on the nod by commons?
The 3rd reading passed 312-311. A nod seems ambitious.
The Lords amendments need to be considered and voted on later this evening
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Accepted on the nod by commons?
The 3rd reading passed 312-311. A nod seems ambitious.
But this amendment is giving more flexibility back to the government, which was one of their complaints about the bill was it not? So would seem more acceptable surely?
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
Why not one tenth every six month? Or, even better, one twentieth every three months?
Annual parliaments is the only outstanding demand of the Peoples Charter of the 1840s.
Electing 130 seats each May would be a step that way, and keep 5 year terms. A reasonable compromise.
I'm not sure I agree. I think it would actually lead to more short-termism as politicians looked to win an election every May, so they would try to avoid unpopular decisions entirely rather than trying to time them at the most propitious moment of the cycle. It would also be quite expensive.
Perhaps they could be by regional bocks. Celtic Britain 1 year, Midlands the next, London and SE one year etc. It would allow some concentration of campaigning, and focus on important issues peripheral in most GE.
The US Senate is elected biannually for 6 year terms, this is a similar mid terms type concept.
The Senate has a very different role from the House of Commons. I don't think what almost works for them would be in any way appropriate for us.
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Commons considers Lords' mendments. If accepted, Bill goes for Royal Assent. If rejected, Bill goes back to Lords, who decide whether to accept Commons' rejection of its amendments (which is usual) or to insist on the amendments, in which it goes back to the Commons to reconsider. In theory a ping-pong effect could occur (but I have a feeling at the back of my mind that Joint Committe of the Commons and Lords can be appointed to break any jog-jam).
Which means that unless the Commons feel it wrecks the bill, it will be accepted
Isn't that a turnover of more than 50% of his cabinet in just over two years? Another thing he has in common with Corbyn...
And May
I think that's a third rather than a half. Not that that's encouraging either.
The bizarre thing about May's cabinet is that no matter who else goes Grayling and Fox survive. It's nearly as crazy as Long-Bailey somehow surviving every purge of Corbyn's cabinet.
I quote, “the Conservatives are on a demographic conveyor belt to oblivion.”
Bleak.
Yet if you look at the attitudes the young have, they are much more pro-Thatcherite than their older compatriots. The Conservative party problem seems to be one of branding, not substance.
A lot of Labour voters will get the shock of their lives if Corbyn gets in to power with a majority. In particular the younger voters and the affluent middle classes.
I quote, “the Conservatives are on a demographic conveyor belt to oblivion.”
Bleak.
Yet if you look at the attitudes the young have, they are much more pro-Thatcherite than their older compatriots. The Conservative party problem seems to be one of branding, not substance.
In terms of individualism, but not in terms of attitudes to international co-operation, the environment or the EU, for instance.
Also a historically unprecedented, and arguably contradicting mix of things like greater support for economic and cultural individualism and support for state nationalisation of utilities and public services.
Not to mention, whenever almost any social ill is revealed, the knee jerk response of "something must be done to censor the Internet!" Young people tend to find that creepy, unnatural and, almost always, promoted by a Minister without the foggiest idea how it works.
This would be such an egregious loss of control May might even prefer revocation.
That may be the actual plan - remember no one wants the blame in the UK so if any extension is so bad that we can't accept it and Parliament rules out no deal where else does May go..
Yes I revoked but had to do it because otherwise we were no longer in control...
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
Why not one tenth every six month? Or, even better, one twentieth every three months?
Annual parliaments is the only outstanding demand of the Peoples Charter of the 1840s.
Electing 130 seats each May would be a step that way, and keep 5 year terms. A reasonable compromise.
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Commons considers Lords' mendments. If accepted, Bill goes for Royal Assent. If rejected, Bill goes back to Lords, who decide whether to accept Commons' rejection of its amendments (which is usual) or to insist on the amendments, in which it goes back to the Commons to reconsider. In theory a ping-pong effect could occur (but I have a feeling at the back of my mind that Joint Committe of the Commons and Lords can be appointed to break any jog-jam).
Which means that unless the Commons feel it wrecks the bill, it will be accepted
I have done some more digging and understand that the Commons has set aside an hour this evening for just such a ping pong (legislative, rather than recreational).
What is "enhanced sincere cooperation" when it's at home?
Not deliberately being a massive tool and wrecking everything in sight to get our way.
They're listening to what the likes of Mogg and Francois are saying, and concerned these clowns would have influence under a new PM.
Farage. JRM, Boris, etc would love the EU to turf us out.
Imagine the fun Farage will have trying to get the EU to kick us out especially if his Brexit Party cleans up in the EU elections (which will be a mandate to be wreckers)
What is "enhanced sincere cooperation" when it's at home?
Not deliberately being a massive tool and wrecking everything in sight to get our way.
They're listening to what the likes of Mogg and Francois are saying, and concerned these clowns would have influence under a new PM.
Farage. JRM, Boris, etc would love the EU to turf us out.
Imagine the fun Farage will have trying to get the EU to kick us out especially if his Brexit Party cleans up in the EU elections (which will be a mandate to be wreckers)
Even as a Remainer, it would actually be quite funny to see a load of Eurosceptic wreckers nominating the next Commission. It would be especially interesting to see how the Council would justify not accepting their Spitzenkandidat when they accepted that abject drink-sodden lowlife Juncker on the say-so of the EPP with predictably disastrous consequences.
Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out leafleting, but in the previous thread eristdoof asked me what I'm comparing this year's positive Lib Dem canvassing responses to.
The answer is I'm comparing to last year, 2018. In my city the wards are all triple member wards with one of the three council seats in each ward up for election each year in turn (excluding the one year in four that we have county council elections instead).
Local elections every year! There can't be many parts of the country that are blessed in that way.
It's quite common, I believe - the idea is to keep a level of party activism all the time and to effect change gradually rather than have a sudden swing from one party to another. Whether the voters like being consulted/pestered more often I don't know.
I'd quite like HoC elections for 1/5th of the seats each year. Hopefully governments would take a more long term view instead of coming up with bribes every 4 or 5 years.
Why not one tenth every six month? Or, even better, one twentieth every three months?
Annual parliaments is the only outstanding demand of the Peoples Charter of the 1840s.
Electing 130 seats each May would be a step that way, and keep 5 year terms. A reasonable compromise.
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Under FPTP, seats matter, not percentage.
Quite and a similar % to brown 2010 would have seen Labour on 200 seats or fewer
So you're agreed that Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown?
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Under FPTP, seats matter, not percentage.
Quite and a similar % to brown 2010 would have seen Labour on 200 seats or fewer
So you're agreed that Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown?
Facts are facts. My original point was that without Scotland a brownian % performance would be worse than 1983, I'm not wrong
I quote, “the Conservatives are on a demographic conveyor belt to oblivion.”
Bleak.
Yet if you look at the attitudes the young have, they are much more pro-Thatcherite than their older compatriots. The Conservative party problem seems to be one of branding, not substance.
Do you have a citation (research, polling, whatever) for that? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just curious.
If I was a Con candidate I really wouldn't bother...
Don't you think both main parties are likely to do equally badly?
No.
Past experience suggests people will vote Labour come what may (look how well Brown did in 2010 for example)
Labour will do quite badly in Leave voting areas in the north but that won't help Con as they'll all go to UKIP and Brexit Party.
But Con will get an absolute drubbing in these EU elections. They're lucky its a PR election so they should keep some MEPs. If it was FPTP they would probably be looking at a Scotland/Wales 1997 total wipe out.
Brown 2010 was flattered by Scotland. A similar performance now would be worse than 1983
Brown 2010 = 258 MPs Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
2017 was not a similar performance, it was much higher %
Under FPTP, seats matter, not percentage.
Quite and a similar % to brown 2010 would have seen Labour on 200 seats or fewer
So you're agreed that Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown?
Facts are facts. My original point was that without Scotland a brownian % performance would be worse than 1983, I'm not wrong
Yes, but if you leave out Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, 1997 was comparable to 1945 for the Tories.
The really embarrassing statistic for Labour in 2010 was that they scored a lower share of the popular vote than the Tories in 1997, and the lowest ever recorded for a party of government.
Breaking: If Cooper/Letwin is agreed today, Government confirms the House will be receiving a motion on an extension. Motion would be tabled later this evening, for debate tomorrow subject to Royal Assent. Government only offering 90 minutes for the debate.
89 minutes too many. MPs can just hold up placards saying “what I’ve said before, repeatedly”. Votes may have changed but there’s little evidence that anything said in Parliament has changed an opinion.
Can anyone tell me how the Cooper/Letwin Bill gets to Royal Assent if it's gone through unamended on third reading in the Commons but has just been amended by Pannick's amendment in the Lords?
Commons considers Lords' mendments. If accepted, Bill goes for Royal Assent. If rejected, Bill goes back to Lords, who decide whether to accept Commons' rejection of its amendments (which is usual) or to insist on the amendments, in which it goes back to the Commons to reconsider. In theory a ping-pong effect could occur (but I have a feeling at the back of my mind that Joint Committe of the Commons and Lords can be appointed to break any jog-jam).
Which means that unless the Commons feel it wrecks the bill, it will be accepted
I have done some more digging and understand that the Commons has set aside an hour this evening for just such a ping pong (legislative, rather than recreational).
For the ping, not the pong. The pong is the problem which is why I don't think they will ping.
Comments
makes you think..
Nothing better than seeing a Con evisceration.
If however Labour don’t try then I could see a scenario where there’s more resignations to the TIG and a combination of Labour rebels the rest of the opposition , ERG and some other Tories vote down the deal which would just be the icing on the cake of the current shambles .
SFX ........Dong!
Newscaster ....... 'Mrs May will fly to Berlin and Paris tomorrow'
SFX ....... Dong!'.
Cut to airline steps.
VCU Mrs May ........" I hold in my hand a piece of paper........"
Voices off ...........SCHEISSE!!!!!!
But if she lasts two years from it, she will doubtless be happy as well as astounded.
May needs to say she’s working on a compromise to the EU and a plan to get that extension .
Let's facilitate a corbyn government to show how cross we are
The result that Parliament gained further control and Royal Prerogative was diminished was great but I don't doubt for a second that if the situation had been reversed and it was Parliament that was in favour of Brexit against a Remainer executive she would have been fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of Parliament.
Maybe she's promised to stay on as PM - that might have been Corbyn's demand.
https://www.ukonward.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Onward-Generation-Why-online-PDF.pdf
Bleak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47853418
I don't know what's worse, what he said or the dumbass excuse he came up with that even Grant Shapps would blush at.
Also Corbyn is not more toxic with the left of centre voters the LDs lost in droves in 2015. Every opportunity to shed the 'Tories Little Helpers' label will need to be taken.
Corbyn 2017 = 262 MPs
Electing 130 seats each May would be a step that way, and keep 5 year terms. A reasonable compromise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos
Also a historically unprecedented, and arguably contradicting mix of things like greater support for economic and cultural individualism and support for state nationalisation of utilities and public services.
The US Senate is elected biannually for 6 year terms, this is a similar mid terms type concept.
Kirstjen Nielsen: US Homeland Security chief resigns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47848619
And she wasn't even his first.
Isn't that a turnover of more than 50% of his cabinet in just over two years? Another thing he has in common with Corbyn...
The bizarre thing about May's cabinet is that no matter who else goes Grayling and Fox survive. It's nearly as crazy as Long-Bailey somehow surviving every purge of Corbyn's cabinet.
Young people tend to find that creepy, unnatural and, almost always, promoted by a Minister without the foggiest idea how it works.
Yes I revoked but had to do it because otherwise we were no longer in control...
Not deliberately being a massive tool and wrecking everything in sight to get our way.
They're listening to what the likes of Mogg and Francois are saying, and concerned these clowns would have influence under a new PM.
Imagine the fun Farage will have trying to get the EU to kick us out especially if his Brexit Party cleans up in the EU elections (which will be a mandate to be wreckers)
The really embarrassing statistic for Labour in 2010 was that they scored a lower share of the popular vote than the Tories in 1997, and the lowest ever recorded for a party of government.