> Twas prominent on the BBC home page despite not making whatever is Scottish for a million
They are missing a hell of a lot more in Paris!
Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
> @Dura_Ace said: > More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE. > > This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
A culture war is happening and it is rubbish for our society and politics. But far from the whole country is involved despite the efforts of the media and politicians. If even a quarter of the country are not that interested in the culture war the Tories will poll more than 13% at a GE regardless of how the Brexit party does.
> @HYUFD said: > > @kle4 said: > > https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1124788878727102464 > > > > > > > > Is this another situation where no. 10 tries to bounce someone into agreeing something by leaking that agreement us close? Thst would be so annoying. > @justin124 said: > > > > > Apparently the Local Election results for the wards within the Peterborough constituency came up with this: > > > > > > > > > > Lab: 35% (-13) > > > > > Con: 31% (-16) > > > > > LDem: 11% (+8) > > > > > UKIP: 8% (+8) > > > > > Grn: 6% (+4) > > > > > Other: 9% (+9) > > > > > > > > Looks like Lab hold on reduced majority to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reduced majority? It is already a tiny one. > > > > Unless BP take more from lab than Con I'd assume a comfortable but not huge win for lab. > > If the Brexit Party win the European elections the momentum will very likely ensure the Brexit Party then win the Peterborough by election 2 weeks later, indeed the Brexit Party will almost certainly have won the Peterbrough local authority area on May 23rd if they do so so voters in the area will already have got used to voting Brexit Party. > > Peterborough was 60% Leave and full of voters furious we are still in the EU, the fact both Labour and the Tories were down in Peterborough in the local elections and it was no overall control is also an ideal circumstance for a Brexit Party win.
People have always had a pretty frivolous attitude to the EU elections and far fewer bother to participate at all. I would expect turnout for the by election to be higher.
> > [Ruth Davidson] changes her position more often than I change my pants, what a fake.
>
>
>
> Once every couple of months???
>
> More than daily, she is a lying toerag of a donkey
Compromising means changing positions. We have had coalition for most of the last decade and probably will for most of the next decade. The electorate and political class needs to grow up and welcome compromise not accuse any one who does so of being fake or a liar.
LOL Compromise, she just changes to what Westminster tell her and then forgets she promised to resign on the mince she had spouted previously. She is a liar and a fake and a seriously big one. She is brown nosing big time for her move to Westminster and nothing else. An empty suit full of wind and a big one at that.
> @TheKitchenCabinet said: > > @rottenborough said: > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > Jezza wont do a deal. > > > > This is all a complete waste of time. > > Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented.
I was wondering that this morning. Letting the LibDems take on the Tories in the south actually worked well for Labour - Cammo only got his 2015 majority because Labour voters in the SW stopped voting tactically. The problem for Labour is that they have since lost Scotland and are starting to sink in Wales. But the biggest issue is that Labour is now a London party and the capital wouldn't stand for leaver-Labour
> @TheKitchenCabinet said: > > @rottenborough said: > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > Jezza wont do a deal. > > > > This is all a complete waste of time. > > Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented.
The remain vote was more fragmented primarily because the Brexit party did not run!
> @Dura_Ace said: > More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE. > > This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
Agree, it is all about values. A little anecdote for you - I live on a private estate in North London. AGMs used to be dull and rarely attended, now they are full and full of arguments and debate. Why? Because the estate has polarised into two factions over the issue of security, pro and anti. Everything else - estate management etc - has been subsumed. Even the other issue that has gained attention, Electric Vehicles charging, is now debated under the reference to security (why are we paying for EVs when we are not paying for security etc). You are now either pro or anti-security and those residents in the middle don't have much say.
> @Dura_Ace said: > More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE. > > This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
on the NHS point, easy comeback for Farage vs Labour charges. He states that the current free at the point of access system for the NHS makes the UK a magnet for those from outside looking for free medical help. So it needs to change. He would make the same argument for why the welfare and housing systems need to change as well.
> @malcolmg said: > > @malcolmg said: > > > > @malcolmg said: > > > > > > > [Ruth Davidson] changes her position more often than I change my pants, what a fake. > > > > > > > > > > > > Once every couple of months??? > > > > > > More than daily, she is a lying toerag of a donkey > > > > Compromising means changing positions. We have had coalition for most of the last decade and probably will for most of the next decade. The electorate and political class needs to grow up and welcome compromise not accuse any one who does so of being fake or a liar. > > LOL Compromise, she just changes to what Westminster tell her and then forgets she promised to resign on the mince she had spouted previously. She is a liar and a fake and a seriously big one. She is brown nosing big time for her move to Westminster and nothing else. An empty suit full of wind and a big one at that.
Everyone can continue to demand "purity" for their particular views and denounce everyone else but it will get us absolutely nowhere. If we are divided, as we clearly are, we have to accept compromises, which by definition is changing views and not delivering what we originally wanted. Compromise is the only democratic solution that can work for us in this situation, otherwise at best we have paralysis and increasing anger.
Calling people who compromise fake and liars is one of the biggest dangers to our democracy.
McDonnell laying into May for breaking confidentiality on the talks . Sounds as if he’s trying to lay the ground work for we tried but couldn’t reach a deal .
If Labour are to have any hope of winning a GE they need to avoid any deal like the plague .
If they come out for a second vote properly and it doesn’t happen they can say they did their best and then let the Tories own Brexit .
Their Leave voters are hardly going to punish them at the next GE if they manage the message properly , we can’t sign upto a Tory Brexit and can’t support no deal , we were left no option but to support a second vote . They might lose a few but Labour Leavers won’t all up sticks , where would they go .
Brexit delivered nullifies both the BP and UKIP.
And as a hard Brexiter is likely to come in this is likely to drive Remain Tories towards the Lib Dems , the areas the Lib Dems did particularly well in.
The Tories are also likely to be trounced in urban areas , quite a few Tories now have slim majorities in London where some big names could fall .
It would seem like an act of self destruction by Labour to agree a deal , there is absolutely nothing to gain but a lot to lose .
What do you care what the English media says or doesn’t say? it’s Scots you need to convince.
You obviously don't listen to news or media, we have to beg Westminster first and also the English media run the media in Scotland. Obviously you are one of these half witted ones that conflate England with UK and know zilch about Scotland.
What do you care what the English media says or doesn’t say? it’s Scots you need to convince.
You obviously don't listen to news or media, we have to beg Westminster first and also the English media run the media in Scotland. Obviously you are one of these half witted ones that conflate England with UK and know zilch about Scotland.
You seem nice.
I am indeed, a gentleman and a scholar. PS; as my previous 21K posts will show.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @TheKitchenCabinet said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > Jezza wont do a deal. > > > > > > This is all a complete waste of time. > > > > Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented. > > The remain vote was more fragmented primarily because the Brexit party did not run!
You are hardened Remain, you have three alternatives - Green, Lib Dems, CHUK You want hardened Brexit, you have one full alternative (The Brexit Party) and a half alternative (UKIP) which is toxic to some voters because of their anti-Muslim stance.
Let's take the inner London seats. Corbyn knows that, in those seats, there is a large block of urban, university educated, pro-Remain supporters who backed Labour the last time but feel betrayed this time round. However, he also knows in those seats he has a large ethnic vote which weights heavily Labour. Let's say the weightings for the two are 50/50. The educated vote leaves Labour but, because there is no clear alternative, splits. However, the ethnic block sticks with Labour. He also keeps a few WWC traditional Labour voters who still live there but are pro-Brexit. Result - Labour easily keeps the seat.
> Everyone can continue to demand "purity" for their particular views and denounce everyone else but it will get us absolutely nowhere. If we are divided, as we clearly are, we have to accept compromises, which by definition is changing views and not delivering what we originally wanted. Compromise is the only democratic solution that can work for us in this situation, otherwise at best we have paralysis and increasing anger. > > Calling people who compromise fake and liars is one of the biggest dangers to our democracy.
Apart from everyone should go along with whatever nebulous policies the Tory party has decided upon this week, what compromise has Davidson offered?
> @malcolmg said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @malcolmg said: > > > > I see the English media seem to have missed this one, what a surprise > > > > https://www.thenational.scot/news/17619352.glasgow-attracts-thousands-of-yes-supporters-for-pro-indy-march/ > > > > > > Twas prominent on the BBC home page despite not making whatever is Scottish for a million > > > > They are missing a hell of a lot more in Paris! > > Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE.
This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
Parliament refusing to implement the referendum result, despite candidates being elected on a manifesto to do so, is a far bigger deal than whether leaving or not is a good or bad thing. The word "Brexit" will go down in history as a reference to the time when Parliament failed the people, not when the UK left the EU
> @TheKitchenCabinet said: > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > @TheKitchenCabinet said: > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > > > Jezza wont do a deal. > > > > > > > > This is all a complete waste of time. > > > > > > Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented. > > > > The remain vote was more fragmented primarily because the Brexit party did not run! > > You are hardened Remain, you have three alternatives - Green, Lib Dems, CHUK > You want hardened Brexit, you have one full alternative (The Brexit Party) and a half alternative (UKIP) which is toxic to some voters because of their anti-Muslim stance. > > Let's take the inner London seats. Corbyn knows that, in those seats, there is a large block of urban, university educated, pro-Remain supporters who backed Labour the last time but feel betrayed this time round. However, he also knows in those seats he has a large ethnic vote which weights heavily Labour. Let's say the weightings for the two are 50/50. The educated vote leaves Labour but, because there is no clear alternative, splits. However, the ethnic block sticks with Labour. He also keeps a few WWC traditional Labour voters who still live there but are pro-Brexit. Result - Labour easily keeps the seat.
You forget to consider which group runs London Labour
> @Foxy said: > @SouthamObserver@SandyRentool > > > Sure, but under Dehondt the question is not numbers of votes, but also numbers of seats. A LD gain in the West Midlands is reasonably likely. In the smaller and more Brexity East Midlands Greens were fractionally ahead of LDs last time, but both well below the seat threshold. I think the LDs are now the better prospect after the Locals.
Historically the LDs have not tended to do well in the EU elections - even when held on the same day as the Local Elections back in 2004 and 2009. This year they will also face competition from TIG - for what that is worth! - and indeed the Brexit Party. Many people vote Libdem - and Green- simply as an anti- establishment vote without paying much attention to their policy positions. For that reason, I expect quite a few who voted LD last week to go for Farage's party on 23rd May. In the past, there was quite a bit of switching between the Liberals and the National Front! I will be surprised if we see such a strong LD performance on 23rd May - though the Local Elections will have helped to steady their vote share.
The only routes towards No Deal without Labour enabling it are a change in the current, finely balanced, parliamentary arithmetic (Peterborough?) or for the EU to call time. The latter is a possibility in October, especially if the keen federalists are confronted with both an increasingly eurosceptic parliament and continued Brexit related disruption to their institutions.
If no deal then happens and things go wrong in the UK ~ when a deal remains on the table ~ I suspect blame will be evenly spread rather than just on the Tories.
> Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
> > Twas prominent on the BBC home page despite not making whatever is Scottish for a million
>
>
>
> They are missing a hell of a lot more in Paris!
>
> Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
Was on the politics front page this morning, despite not getting even 100k
maybe I blinked and missed it but no sign of it , and I expect there were at least 100K. Equivalent of at least 1 million in English terms. may not hear much down there but it is very popular and rising up here for sure, three times as many as marched last year.
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > Everyone can continue to demand "purity" for their particular views and denounce everyone else but it will get us absolutely nowhere. If we are divided, as we clearly are, we have to accept compromises, which by definition is changing views and not delivering what we originally wanted. Compromise is the only democratic solution that can work for us in this situation, otherwise at best we have paralysis and increasing anger. > > > > Calling people who compromise fake and liars is one of the biggest dangers to our democracy. > > Apart from everyone should go along with whatever nebulous policies the Tory party has decided upon this week, what compromise has Davidson offered?
She thinks we should remain. The country voted leave so she accepts leave, but wants Scotlands views and remain views taken into account. She is not in a position to offer a compromise as the negotiations are between May and Corbyn (or their teams). She is saying she will support that compromise, how is that not compromising when she thinks we should remain?
> > Twas prominent on the BBC home page despite not making whatever is Scottish for a million
>
>
>
> They are missing a hell of a lot more in Paris!
>
> Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
> @malcolmg said: > I see the English media seem to have missed this one, what a surprise > https://www.thenational.scot/news/17619352.glasgow-attracts-thousands-of-yes-supporters-for-pro-indy-march/ > > What do you care what the English media says or doesn’t say? it’s Scots you need to convince. > > You obviously don't listen to news or media, we have to beg Westminster first and also the English media run the media in Scotland. Obviously you are one of these half witted ones that conflate England with UK and know zilch about Scotland. > > You seem nice. > > I am indeed, a gentleman and a scholar. > PS; as my previous 21K posts will show.
I think you missed out "as <b>4 of</b> my 21k posts will show...."
> @isam said: > More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE. > > This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife. > > Parliament refusing to implement the referendum result, despite candidates being elected on a manifesto to do so, is a far bigger deal than whether leaving or not is a good or bad thing. The word "Brexit" will go down in history as a reference to the time when Parliament failed the people, not when the UK left the EU
It is a bigger thing to you (and to many, and with some cause), but it is not a bigger thing to everyone, if you are a worker without much interest in politics in a car factory that is closing down, jobs and the economy will be a bigger issue than Brexit.
> Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
(Glad to be of service)/ Also Express, Guardian, ITV have pieces.
Loving the stewards in SNP tabards on a "non party political" march.
Yes a half hour search into the bowels of the BBC website, I am sure most of England will go through those contortions for sure. Another Little Englander apologist trying to prove the impossible.
> > Everyone can continue to demand "purity" for their particular views and denounce everyone else but it will get us absolutely nowhere. If we are divided, as we clearly are, we have to accept compromises, which by definition is changing views and not delivering what we originally wanted. Compromise is the only democratic solution that can work for us in this situation, otherwise at best we have paralysis and increasing anger.
> >
> > Calling people who compromise fake and liars is one of the biggest dangers to our democracy.
>
> Apart from everyone should go along with whatever nebulous policies the Tory party has decided upon this week, what compromise has Davidson offered?
She thinks we should remain. The country voted leave so she accepts leave, but wants Scotlands views and remain views taken into account. She is not in a position to offer a compromise as the negotiations are between May and Corbyn (or their teams). She is saying she will support that compromise, how is that not compromising when she thinks we should remain?
She is a liar , she wants what Westminster Tories tell her she wants , and that changes by the weather> An out and out liar.
> @noneoftheabove said: > She thinks we should remain. The country voted leave so she accepts leave, but wants Scotlands views and remain views taken into account. She is not in a position to offer a compromise as the negotiations are between May and Corbyn (or their teams). She is saying she will support that compromise, how is that not compromising when she thinks we should remain?
'The country'. There's the problem, her (and presumably your) idea of which country voted leave differs from mine.
Still, marvellous that she wants Scots to go along with a compromise stitched up by two minority parties in Scotland, led by general agreement the worst PM and leader of the opposition in recent history. Anyone sceptical of that is just a diehard purist.
> @thecommissioner said: > Disastrous NO DEAL Brexit under Johnson? > > The only routes towards No Deal without Labour enabling it are a change in the current, finely balanced, parliamentary arithmetic (Peterborough?) or for the EU to call time. The latter is a possibility in October, especially if the keen federalists are confronted with both an increasingly eurosceptic parliament and continued Brexit related disruption to their institutions. > > If no deal then happens and things go wrong in the UK ~ when a deal remains on the table ~ I suspect blame will be evenly spread rather than just on the Tories.
The blame should be widely shared no matter what. Labour, for example, could have killed Brexit at birth had it been so minded.
> > > Out for dinner with 9 colleagues last night, all quite senior. The Euro vote came up over dessert, and not raised by my good self. Much hostility to Corbyn, but strong support for the LDs. I am reconsidering my own inclination to vote Green after Fridays result, as it does look like Remainers will coalesce around the LDs. Even a self described Thatcherite was going that way.
> > >
> > > In other news, it is up to Brendan Rogers to make the last day of the PL interesting. I think the odds on Man City beating Leicester are too short at 1.19, I reckon this is value as a lay and Leicester may well get some points. We did draw with Liverpool at Anfield, thrashed Arsenal last week and are one of the few teams to beat Man City this season, when we won 2:1 on Boxing Day.
> >
> > I was going to vote Green in the Euros. Will now be voting LibDem.
> >
> > My guess is that CHUK will do best in London and the SE.
>
> Voting Green would both send a message on Brexit and on the environment. Perhaps you might reconsider?
I am torn between Green and Lib Dem. There is no Lib Dem MEP for my bit of London, surprisingly so. I would like to reinforce the boost they have had. OTOH I am a bit of a Greenie myself and there is a Green MEP already. Which one would best send the message that the political class needs to take a deep breath and stop behaving like boobies?
Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @noneoftheabove said: > > She thinks we should remain. The country voted leave so she accepts leave, but wants Scotlands views and remain views taken into account. She is not in a position to offer a compromise as the negotiations are between May and Corbyn (or their teams). She is saying she will support that compromise, how is that not compromising when she thinks we should remain? > > 'The country'. > There's the problem, her (and presumably your) idea of which country voted leave differs from mine. > > Still, marvellous that she wants Scots to go along with a compromise stitched up by two minority parties in Scotland, led by general agreement the worst PM and leader of the opposition in recent history. Anyone sceptical of that is just a diehard purist. > >
I have no view on Scottish independence beyond it is a matter for the Scottish people, but Scotland is currently part of the UK and voted to stay. If they want another independence vote because of Brexit that seems perfectly reasonable. The country in the context of the Brexit vote did vote to leave, that is a simple fact.
I also have absolutely no problems in anyone being sceptical or disagreeing vehemently with her or her views, I do strongly object to the idea that simply because she is compromising she is a liar and a fake. Compromising is 100% necessary in todays political climate.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject.
I liked it too. Amd I fundamentally agree. Which I don't always. FTPA was a reckless act for short term party political gain.
> @dixiedean said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject. > > I liked it too. Amd I fundamentally agree. Which I don't always. FTPA was a reckless act for short term party political gain.
Yes a half hour search into the bowels of the BBC website, I am sure most of England will go through those contortions for sure. Another Little Englander apologist trying to prove the impossible.
It was second story on the BBC website for most of yesterday.
As I predicted in a thread header that remained unpublished (apparently there was some random shit about Brexit and the government being pounded like a dockside hooker in a meaningful vote) the storms are breaking in education:
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @malcolmg said: > > I see the English media seem to have missed this one, what a surprise > > https://www.thenational.scot/news/17619352.glasgow-attracts-thousands-of-yes-supporters-for-pro-indy-march/ > > > > What do you care what the English media says or doesn’t say? it’s Scots you need to convince. > > > > You obviously don't listen to news or media, we have to beg Westminster first and also the English media run the media in Scotland. Obviously you are one of these half witted ones that conflate England with UK and know zilch about Scotland. > > > > You seem nice. > > > > I am indeed, a gentleman and a scholar. > > PS; as my previous 21K posts will show. > > I think you missed out "as <b>4 of</b> my 21k posts will show...."
The government only has the confidence of the House in the limited legal sense that it won the vote of confidence required by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. In any meaningful practical sense it does not appear to have the Confidence of the House. In other words it has confidence de jure, but not de facto. These should not have been separated.
Had May been able to make the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote then either it would have been passed, or the government would have fallen with it, allowing us to take a step forward to working out what to do.
As it is the position of all parties is ossified, held in an excruciating limbo while we wait for the contradiction in the government's position of confidence to play out.
> @noneoftheabove said: > I have no view on Scottish independence beyond it is a matter for the Scottish people, but Scotland is currently part of the UK and voted to stay. If they want another independence vote because of Brexit that seems perfectly reasonable. The country in the context of the Brexit vote did vote to leave, that is a simple fact. > > I also have absolutely no problems in anyone being sceptical or disagreeing vehemently with her or her views, I do strongly object to the idea that simply because she is compromising she is a liar and a fake. Compromising is 100% necessary in todays political climate.
In the spirit of compromise, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think she is in any way genuinely compromising, except as part of the unending internecine clusterfuck of the Tory party.
> > Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Main differences are really that the Green vote is more reliably environmental all the time, and also further left than :Labour (e.g. a Green-Tory coalition is unthinkable, whereas Lab-Tory coalition have existed at local level here and there). I know Labour people who privately flirt with voting Green (seen as purists but heart in right place), whereas they're wary of the LibDems (trust issue) and actively hostile to ChUK (splitters).
If we do withdraw, of course, it makes little difference.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject.
Would it be called: "How Cameron fucked Britain over. Part Three" ?
> @dixiedean said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject. > > I liked it too. Amd I fundamentally agree. Which I don't always. FTPA was a reckless act for short term party political gain.
> Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Main differences are really that the Green vote is more reliably environmental all the time, and also further left than :Labour (e.g. a Green-Tory coalition is unthinkable, whereas Lab-Tory coalition have existed at local level here and there). I know Labour people who privately flirt with voting Green (seen as purists but heart in right place), whereas they're wary of the LibDems (trust issue) and actively hostile to ChUK (splitters).
If we do withdraw, of course, it makes little difference.
Actually you probably know the answer to this one, I was wondering which group the Greens sit with in the European Parliament. If they sit in the same one as Labour then they'd have more influence than the Lib Dems who I assume sit with the the Liberals.
> Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Main differences are really that the Green vote is more reliably environmental all the time, and also further left than :Labour (e.g. a Green-Tory coalition is unthinkable, whereas Lab-Tory coalition have existed at local level here and there). I know Labour people who privately flirt with voting Green (seen as purists but heart in right place), whereas they're wary of the LibDems (trust issue) and actively hostile to ChUK (splitters).
If we do withdraw, of course, it makes little difference.
Actually you probably know the answer to this one, I was wondering which group the Greens sit with in the European Parliament. If they sit in the same one as Labour then they'd have more influence than the Lib Dems who I assume sit with the the Liberals.
They sit with the Greens! (Also Plaid and - more surprisingly - the SNP.)
> Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Main differences are really that the Green vote is more reliably environmental all the time, and also further left than :Labour (e.g. a Green-Tory coalition is unthinkable, whereas Lab-Tory coalition have existed at local level here and there). I know Labour people who privately flirt with voting Green (seen as purists but heart in right place), whereas they're wary of the LibDems (trust issue) and actively hostile to ChUK (splitters).
If we do withdraw, of course, it makes little difference.
Actually you probably know the answer to this one, I was wondering which group the Greens sit with in the European Parliament. If they sit in the same one as Labour then they'd have more influence than the Lib Dems who I assume sit with the the Liberals.
They sit with the Greens! (Also Plaid and - more surprisingly - the SNP.)
It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finishing ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great.
Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finished ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great. > > Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind.
Basically remainers will have to decide which party is best able to impede Farage? That will become clearer in the coming week or so. A unified block would be best but that's not happening so let's see how the polls move
> @SouthamObserver said: > > @Jonathan said: > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
> @SouthamObserver said: > > @Jonathan said: > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
Fancy a bet for charity? I reckon, if it comes to a vote on a compromise between may and Cornyn, more than 100 Labour MPs will vote for the deal and obey the whip.
Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
Doesn't mean they shouldn't try, but I like the analogy about Labour doing a deal with the Conservatives being a bit like trying to do a deal with a company about to go into administration.
Indeed the very act of agreeing the deal may be the thing that finally pushes the company into administration.
There has to be a word for the rhetorical technique where you subliminally diminish/augment something by slapping an adjective to a word, like "clean" brexit, "technical" recession or "advisory" referendum. It's not just a "theoretical" model, it's an actual fact. You of all people should know that legal fictions are not fictions in law and legal technicalities cannot be waved away by handwavium.
> @AndyJS said: > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures: > > Con 31% (-5) > Lab 31% (-1) > LD 17% (+7) > UKIP 4% (-8) > Others 17% (+7)
How does the Others break down? Or don't they say? 31-31 is somewhat at odds with 28-28 isn't it?
The FTPA is a constitutional atrocity and the Conservatives were absolutely right to propose scrapping it in the 2017 manifesto. Yet another disaster inflicted on this country by the Coalition, which really was a terrible Government - only Brown's was worse.
Hopefully the Commission which is to review it in 2020 will come to the same conclusion and rip it up.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100. > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists. > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
Its because a compromise would work in practice that the fanatics on both sides so oppose one.
> @MikeSmithson said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finished ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great. > > > > Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind. > > Basically remainers will have to decide which party is best able to impede Farage? That will become clearer in the coming week or so. A unified block would be best but that's not happening so let's see how the polls move
All this LD or Green is a nice dilemma for you lot. One I would like to share. Unfortunately, here in the NE, thanks to no agreement, there are only 3 possible winners of seats. The Tories, Nigel's band of insouciant insurrectionists or Labour. Sadly, only one choice for Remainers if we don't want to waste our vote entirely. Utterly unsatisfactory.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100. > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists. > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP.
> @dixiedean said: > > @AndyJS said: > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures: > > > > Con 31% (-5) > > Lab 31% (-1) > > LD 17% (+7) > > UKIP 4% (-8) > > Others 17% (+7) > > How does the Others break down? Or don't they say? > 31-31 is somewhat at odds with 28-28 isn't it?
They don't say about Others. It's not surprising the figures are different because they have to estimate how places that didn't vote this year like Scotland, Wales, London and Birmingham might have voted and there are probably lots of ways of making those extrapolations.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > The government only has the confidence of the House in the limited legal sense that it won the vote of confidence required by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. In any meaningful practical sense it does not appear to have the Confidence of the House. In other words it has confidence de jure, but not de facto. These should not have been separated. > > Had May been able to make the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote then either it would have been passed, or the government would have fallen with it, allowing us to take a step forward to working out what to do. > > As it is the position of all parties is ossified, held in an excruciating limbo while we wait for the contradiction in the government's position of confidence to play out.
Not sure it's the FTPA stopping an election. I think it's more TM's total lack of authority.
If the party had not ruled out her leading them into battle again she COULD have responded to losing the MV with a snap election. The 2/3 hurdle would have been cleared with the Tory whip plus all the Opposition voting for it.
> @solarflare said: > Doesn't mean they shouldn't try, but I like the analogy about Labour doing a deal with the Conservatives being a bit like trying to do a deal with a company about to go into administration. > > Indeed the very act of agreeing the deal may be the thing that finally pushes the company into administration.
Don't get Mike Ashley involved at all costs. One thing I reckon we can all agree wholeheartedly.
> > It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finished ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great.
> >
> > Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind.
>
> Basically remainers will have to decide which party is best able to impede Farage? That will become clearer in the coming week or so. A unified block would be best but that's not happening so let's see how the polls move
All this LD or Green is a nice dilemma for you lot. One I would like to share. Unfortunately, here in the NE, thanks to no agreement, there are only 3 possible winners of seats. The Tories, Nigel's band of insouciant insurrectionists or Labour.
Sadly, only one choice for Remainers if we don't want to waste our vote entirely.
> @AndyJS said: > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures: > > Con 31% (-5) > Lab 31% (-1) > LD 17% (+7) > UKIP 4% (-8) > Others 17% (+7)
Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
Neither Labour nor Tory parties have any way out of this. Bizarrely the leadership's could now do a deal from a policy perspective but at the cost of splitting both their parties. So that's out. Both parties utterly detest their existing leader but for different reasons have no way to remove them without splitting. So that's out. Both parties have electorates demanding absolute polar opposite policies from the same politicians. Both think they can triangulate. So that's out.
In short, this is the end of the post Thatcher settlement. Labour, Conservative. Both facing fundamental restructures to remain relevant. Just because a party has been dominant doesn't mean that it will continue to do so.
> @Recidivist said: > > @SandyRentool said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > Some anecdata: > > > > > > > > > > Out for dinner with 9 colleagues last night, all quite senior. The Euro vote came up over dessert, and not raised by my good self. Much hostility to Corbyn, but strong support for the LDs. I am reconsidering my own inclination to vote Green after Fridays result, as it does look like Remainers will coalesce around the LDs. Even a self described Thatcherite was going that way. > > > > > > > > > > In other news, it is up to Brendan Rogers to make the last day of the PL interesting. I think the odds on Man City beating Leicester are too short at 1.19, I reckon this is value as a lay and Leicester may well get some points. We did draw with Liverpool at Anfield, thrashed Arsenal last week and are one of the few teams to beat Man City this season, when we won 2:1 on Boxing Day. > > > > > > > > I was going to vote Green in the Euros. Will now be voting LibDem. > > > > > > > > My guess is that CHUK will do best in London and the SE. > > > > > > Voting Green would both send a message on Brexit and on the environment. Perhaps you might reconsider? > > > > I am torn between Green and Lib Dem. There is no Lib Dem MEP for my bit of London, surprisingly so. I would like to reinforce the boost they have had. OTOH I am a bit of a Greenie myself and there is a Green MEP already. Which one would best send the message that the political class needs to take a deep breath and stop behaving like boobies? > > Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Yes but the Green is almost certain to get one seat in London whereas the LibDem is 50/50. So a LibDem vote is more effective in maximising the number of Remain MEPs even though it makes no difference to the aggregate Remain vote.
> @another_richard said: > > @AndyJS said: > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures: > > > > Con 31% (-5) > > Lab 31% (-1) > > LD 17% (+7) > > UKIP 4% (-8) > > Others 17% (+7) > > Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
In short, this is the end of the post Thatcher settlement. Labour, Conservative. Both facing fundamental restructures to remain relevant. Just because a party has been dominant doesn't mean that it will continue to do so.
That seems a very Liberal interpretation of the current situation.
> @anothernick said: > > @NickPalmer said: > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > > > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100. > > > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists. > > > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down. > > Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP.
Personally I have always believed in a 'confirmatory vote' and was advocating it prior to the 23rd June 2016. There was no such committment,however, from Labour at the 2017 election . Were he to reach a deal along the lines being mooted, Corbyn could reasonably claim to be complying with the Manifesto pledge to honour the referendum result.
> > > > Out for dinner with 9 colleagues last night, all quite senior. The Euro vote came up over dessert, and not raised by my good self. Much hostility to Corbyn, but strong support for the LDs. I am reconsidering my own inclination to vote Green after Fridays result, as it does look like Remainers will coalesce around the LDs. Even a self described Thatcherite was going that way.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > In other news, it is up to Brendan Rogers to make the last day of the PL interesting. I think the odds on Man City beating Leicester are too short at 1.19, I reckon this is value as a lay and Leicester may well get some points. We did draw with Liverpool at Anfield, thrashed Arsenal last week and are one of the few teams to beat Man City this season, when we won 2:1 on Boxing Day.
>
> > >
>
> > > I was going to vote Green in the Euros. Will now be voting LibDem.
>
> > >
>
> > > My guess is that CHUK will do best in London and the SE.
>
> >
>
> > Voting Green would both send a message on Brexit and on the environment. Perhaps you might reconsider?
>
>
>
> I am torn between Green and Lib Dem. There is no Lib Dem MEP for my bit of London, surprisingly so. I would like to reinforce the boost they have had. OTOH I am a bit of a Greenie myself and there is a Green MEP already. Which one would best send the message that the political class needs to take a deep breath and stop behaving like boobies?
>
> Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Yes but the Green is almost certain to get one seat in London whereas the LibDem is 50/50. So a LibDem vote is more effective in maximising the number of Remain MEPs even though it makes no difference to the aggregate Remain vote.
Thanks. I hadn't thought of it like that. I'm actually in the South East, but I think the same logic applies.
> @dixiedean said: > > @MikeSmithson said: > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finished ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great. > > > > > > Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind. > > > > Basically remainers will have to decide which party is best able to impede Farage? That will become clearer in the coming week or so. A unified block would be best but that's not happening so let's see how the polls move > > All this LD or Green is a nice dilemma for you lot. One I would like to share. Unfortunately, here in the NE, thanks to no agreement, there are only 3 possible winners of seats. The Tories, Nigel's band of insouciant insurrectionists or Labour. > Sadly, only one choice for Remainers if we don't want to waste our vote entirely. > Utterly unsatisfactory.
It is liberating too. While the chance of a pro Remain MEP is small in the NE, the popular vote will also make the news, so vote your favourite flavour of Pro Remain between LD, Green and CHUK.
> @another_richard said: > > @AndyJS said: > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures: > > > > Con 31% (-5) > > Lab 31% (-1) > > LD 17% (+7) > > UKIP 4% (-8) > > Others 17% (+7) > > Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
I don't understand your "dismal" comment. It's true the LDs got 27% at the 1994 local elections and they haven't got anywhere near that level recently.
> @justin124 said: > > @anothernick said: > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > > > > > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100. > > > > > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists. > > > > > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down. > > > > Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP. > > Personally I have always believed in a 'confirmatory vote' and was advocating it prior to the 23rd June 2016. There was no such committment,however, from Labour at the 2017 election . Were he to reach a deal along the lines being mooted, Corbyn could reasonably claim to be complying with the Manifesto pledge to honour the referendum result.
Agreeing a Deal including a Customs Union close alignment to SM and workers rights has been party policy since last years Conference. Anyone mardying off has no idea what compromise means.
> Twas prominent on the BBC home page despite not making whatever is Scottish for a million
They are missing a hell of a lot more in Paris!
Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
> @AndyJS said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @AndyJS said: > > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures: > > > > > > Con 31% (-5) > > > Lab 31% (-1) > > > LD 17% (+7) > > > UKIP 4% (-8) > > > Others 17% (+7) > > > > Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems. > > I don't understand your "dismal" comment. It's true the LDs got 27% at the 1994 local elections and they haven't got anywhere near that level recently.
The LibDems were continually above 20% throughout the 2000s in local elections.
Suppose a Con-Lab deal were struck: how much time would be required to pass a vote and avert the European election?
As the Deal would have to be approved by the European Parliament after the new parliament is elected, I believe the Euro elections cannot now be cancelled.
> @RochdalePioneers said: > Neither Labour nor Tory parties have any way out of this. Bizarrely the leadership's could now do a deal from a policy perspective but at the cost of splitting both their parties. So that's out. Both parties utterly detest their existing leader but for different reasons have no way to remove them without splitting. So that's out. Both parties have electorates demanding absolute polar opposite policies from the same politicians. Both think they can triangulate. So that's out. > > In short, this is the end of the post Thatcher settlement. Labour, Conservative. Both facing fundamental restructures to remain relevant. Just because a party has been dominant doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. ------------------------------------------------ Not sure your second paragraph is correct, but your first one is an apt summary of the awkwardness of the present position.
> > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
> > >
> > > Con 31% (-5)
> > > Lab 31% (-1)
> > > LD 17% (+7)
> > > UKIP 4% (-8)
> > > Others 17% (+7)
> >
> > Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
>
> I don't understand your "dismal" comment. It's true the LDs got 27% at the 1994 local elections and they haven't got anywhere near that level recently.
The LibDems were continually above 20% throughout the 2000s in local elections.
> @justin124 said: > > @anothernick said: > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > > > > > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100. > > > > > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists. > > > > > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down. > > > > Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP. > > Personally I have always believed in a 'confirmatory vote' and was advocating it prior to the 23rd June 2016. There was no such committment,however, from Labour at the 2017 election . Were he to reach a deal along the lines being mooted, Corbyn could reasonably claim to be complying with the Manifesto pledge to honour the referendum result.
Actually I don't expect a deal to be agreed. Neither leader can deliver their parliamentaryarty so a deal would lead only serve to illustrate how impotent both of them are. The result of the local elections, which will be reinforced by the Euros, is that both no dealers and revoke/remain/2nd referendum suppprters are more certain than ever that they are right, compromise is now even less likely than it was before. The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > @SouthamObserver said: > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though. > > > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour. > > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100. > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists. > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, and while I do get that I find it disheartening, here and elsewhere in fact, to see people treating the possibility itself as wrong somehow. I might not agree with a political compromise, but that's a different matter entirely.
> @Foxy said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > @AndyJS said: > > > > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures: > > > > > > > > > > Con 31% (-5) > > > > > Lab 31% (-1) > > > > > LD 17% (+7) > > > > > UKIP 4% (-8) > > > > > Others 17% (+7) > > > > > > > > Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems. > > > > > > I don't understand your "dismal" comment. It's true the LDs got 27% at the 1994 local elections and they haven't got anywhere near that level recently. > > > > The LibDems were continually above 20% throughout the 2000s in local elections. > > So the best NEV in a decade is "dismal"? > > You must be rather dizzy, spinning so much!
You're sounding increasingly desperate.
Even with the ideal circumstances of this year the LibDems still can't reach the level they regarded as normal for over a decade.
Your recovery is slower and weaker than what the Conservatives managed under Hague and Labour managed under EdM.
Comments
> More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE.
>
> This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
A culture war is happening and it is rubbish for our society and politics. But far from the whole country is involved despite the efforts of the media and politicians. If even a quarter of the country are not that interested in the culture war the Tories will poll more than 13% at a GE regardless of how the Brexit party does.
> > @kle4 said:
> > https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1124788878727102464
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this another situation where no. 10 tries to bounce someone into agreeing something by leaking that agreement us close? Thst would be so annoying. > @justin124 said:
> >
> > > Apparently the Local Election results for the wards within the Peterborough constituency came up with this:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Lab: 35% (-13)
> >
> > > Con: 31% (-16)
> >
> > > LDem: 11% (+8)
> >
> > > UKIP: 8% (+8)
> >
> > > Grn: 6% (+4)
> >
> > > Other: 9% (+9)
> >
> >
> >
> > Looks like Lab hold on reduced majority to me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Reduced majority? It is already a tiny one.
> >
> > Unless BP take more from lab than Con I'd assume a comfortable but not huge win for lab.
>
> If the Brexit Party win the European elections the momentum will very likely ensure the Brexit Party then win the Peterborough by election 2 weeks later, indeed the Brexit Party will almost certainly have won the Peterbrough local authority area on May 23rd if they do so so voters in the area will already have got used to voting Brexit Party.
>
> Peterborough was 60% Leave and full of voters furious we are still in the EU, the fact both Labour and the Tories were down in Peterborough in the local elections and it was no overall control is also an ideal circumstance for a Brexit Party win.
People have always had a pretty frivolous attitude to the EU elections and far fewer bother to participate at all. I would expect turnout for the by election to be higher.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> >
> > Jezza wont do a deal.
> >
> > This is all a complete waste of time.
>
> Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented.
I was wondering that this morning. Letting the LibDems take on the Tories in the south actually worked well for Labour - Cammo only got his 2015 majority because Labour voters in the SW stopped voting tactically. The problem for Labour is that they have since lost Scotland and are starting to sink in Wales. But the biggest issue is that Labour is now a London party and the capital wouldn't stand for leaver-Labour
> > @rottenborough said:
> > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> >
> > Jezza wont do a deal.
> >
> > This is all a complete waste of time.
>
> Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented.
The remain vote was more fragmented primarily because the Brexit party did not run!
> More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE.
>
> This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
Agree, it is all about values. A little anecdote for you - I live on a private estate in North London. AGMs used to be dull and rarely attended, now they are full and full of arguments and debate. Why? Because the estate has polarised into two factions over the issue of security, pro and anti. Everything else - estate management etc - has been subsumed. Even the other issue that has gained attention, Electric Vehicles charging, is now debated under the reference to security (why are we paying for EVs when we are not paying for security etc). You are now either pro or anti-security and those residents in the middle don't have much say.
> More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE.
>
> This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
on the NHS point, easy comeback for Farage vs Labour charges. He states that the current free at the point of access system for the NHS makes the UK a magnet for those from outside looking for free medical help. So it needs to change. He would make the same argument for why the welfare and housing systems need to change as well.
> I see the English media seem to have missed this one, what a surprise
> https://www.thenational.scot/news/17619352.glasgow-attracts-thousands-of-yes-supporters-for-pro-indy-march/
>
> What do you care what the English media says or doesn’t say? it’s Scots you need to convince.
Tbf the 'English' media seems to be catching on.
'My England is in a mess. Scotland’s case for splitting away is stronger than ever'
https://tinyurl.com/y6mxxvac
'Some sort of Scottish independence is inevitable. May needs to face up to it'
https://tinyurl.com/y3b5jw83
'Is an independent Scotland now inevitable? I'm beginning to believe it might be'
https://tinyurl.com/y364p83w
'Brexit makes the case for an independent Scotland'
https://tinyurl.com/yxsp96b2
Of course the British, English and Scottish BBC will be the last bulwark for the Union against the Nat White Walkers.
> > @malcolmg said:
>
> > > @malcolmg said:
>
> >
>
> > > [Ruth Davidson] changes her position more often than I change my pants, what a fake.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Once every couple of months???
>
> >
>
> > More than daily, she is a lying toerag of a donkey
>
>
>
> Compromising means changing positions. We have had coalition for most of the last decade and probably will for most of the next decade. The electorate and political class needs to grow up and welcome compromise not accuse any one who does so of being fake or a liar.
>
> LOL Compromise, she just changes to what Westminster tell her and then forgets she promised to resign on the mince she had spouted previously. She is a liar and a fake and a seriously big one. She is brown nosing big time for her move to Westminster and nothing else. An empty suit full of wind and a big one at that.
Everyone can continue to demand "purity" for their particular views and denounce everyone else but it will get us absolutely nowhere. If we are divided, as we clearly are, we have to accept compromises, which by definition is changing views and not delivering what we originally wanted. Compromise is the only democratic solution that can work for us in this situation, otherwise at best we have paralysis and increasing anger.
Calling people who compromise fake and liars is one of the biggest dangers to our democracy.
If Labour are to have any hope of winning a GE they need to avoid any deal like the plague .
If they come out for a second vote properly and it doesn’t happen they can say they did their best and then let the Tories own Brexit .
Their Leave voters are hardly going to punish them at the next GE if they manage the message properly , we can’t sign upto a Tory Brexit and can’t support no deal , we were left no option but to support a second vote . They might lose a few but Labour Leavers won’t all up sticks , where would they go .
Brexit delivered nullifies both the BP and UKIP.
And as a hard Brexiter is likely to come in this is likely to drive Remain Tories towards the Lib Dems , the areas the Lib Dems did particularly well in.
The Tories are also likely to be trounced in urban areas , quite a few Tories now have slim majorities in London where some big names could fall .
It would seem like an act of self destruction by Labour to agree a deal , there is absolutely nothing to gain but a lot to lose .
PS; as my previous 21K posts will show.
> > @TheKitchenCabinet said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > >
> > > Jezza wont do a deal.
> > >
> > > This is all a complete waste of time.
> >
> > Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented.
>
> The remain vote was more fragmented primarily because the Brexit party did not run!
You are hardened Remain, you have three alternatives - Green, Lib Dems, CHUK
You want hardened Brexit, you have one full alternative (The Brexit Party) and a half alternative (UKIP) which is toxic to some voters because of their anti-Muslim stance.
Let's take the inner London seats. Corbyn knows that, in those seats, there is a large block of urban, university educated, pro-Remain supporters who backed Labour the last time but feel betrayed this time round. However, he also knows in those seats he has a large ethnic vote which weights heavily Labour. Let's say the weightings for the two are 50/50. The educated vote leaves Labour but, because there is no clear alternative, splits. However, the ethnic block sticks with Labour. He also keeps a few WWC traditional Labour voters who still live there but are pro-Brexit. Result - Labour easily keeps the seat.
> Everyone can continue to demand "purity" for their particular views and denounce everyone else but it will get us absolutely nowhere. If we are divided, as we clearly are, we have to accept compromises, which by definition is changing views and not delivering what we originally wanted. Compromise is the only democratic solution that can work for us in this situation, otherwise at best we have paralysis and increasing anger.
>
> Calling people who compromise fake and liars is one of the biggest dangers to our democracy.
Apart from everyone should go along with whatever nebulous policies the Tory party has decided upon this week, what compromise has Davidson offered?
> > @IanB2 said:
>
> > > @malcolmg said:
>
> > > I see the English media seem to have missed this one, what a surprise
>
> > > https://www.thenational.scot/news/17619352.glasgow-attracts-thousands-of-yes-supporters-for-pro-indy-march/
>
> >
>
> > Twas prominent on the BBC home page despite not making whatever is Scottish for a million
>
>
>
> They are missing a hell of a lot more in Paris!
>
> Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48154679
Was on the politics front page this morning, despite not getting even 100k
> > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > @TheKitchenCabinet said:
> > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > > >
> > > > Jezza wont do a deal.
> > > >
> > > > This is all a complete waste of time.
> > >
> > > Agreed. One lesson Corbyn might take from Thursday is that the Remain vote is now fragmented more than the Brexit vote. The Lib Dems are sback in town, the Greens won a surprising amount of votes and there is also CHUK. Under a FPTP system, that changes his calculation significantly in his remain-voting seats. He may now think it is worth taking the risk of becoming more leave, keep his Brexit-leaning voters on board (who would have only one alternative, the Brexit party) and still win most seats under FPTP as the Remain bloc is so fragmented.
> >
> > The remain vote was more fragmented primarily because the Brexit party did not run!
>
> You are hardened Remain, you have three alternatives - Green, Lib Dems, CHUK
> You want hardened Brexit, you have one full alternative (The Brexit Party) and a half alternative (UKIP) which is toxic to some voters because of their anti-Muslim stance.
>
> Let's take the inner London seats. Corbyn knows that, in those seats, there is a large block of urban, university educated, pro-Remain supporters who backed Labour the last time but feel betrayed this time round. However, he also knows in those seats he has a large ethnic vote which weights heavily Labour. Let's say the weightings for the two are 50/50. The educated vote leaves Labour but, because there is no clear alternative, splits. However, the ethnic block sticks with Labour. He also keeps a few WWC traditional Labour voters who still live there but are pro-Brexit. Result - Labour easily keeps the seat.
You forget to consider which group runs London Labour
> @SouthamObserver @SandyRentool
>
>
> Sure, but under Dehondt the question is not numbers of votes, but also numbers of seats. A LD gain in the West Midlands is reasonably likely. In the smaller and more Brexity East Midlands Greens were fractionally ahead of LDs last time, but both well below the seat threshold. I think the LDs are now the better prospect after the Locals.
Historically the LDs have not tended to do well in the EU elections - even when held on the same day as the Local Elections back in 2004 and 2009. This year they will also face competition from TIG - for what that is worth! - and indeed the Brexit Party. Many people vote Libdem - and Green- simply as an anti- establishment vote without paying much attention to their policy positions. For that reason, I expect quite a few who voted LD last week to go for Farage's party on 23rd May. In the past, there was quite a bit of switching between the Liberals and the National Front! I will be surprised if we see such a strong LD performance on 23rd May - though the Local Elections will have helped to steady their vote share.
If no deal then happens and things go wrong in the UK ~ when a deal remains on the table ~ I suspect blame will be evenly spread rather than just on the Tories.
> Funnily enough if you look at the BBC website there is no mention of it whatsoever, yet the other week they had blanket coverage of 30 twats marching for Farage.
BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48154679
(Glad to be of service)/ Also Express, Guardian, ITV have pieces.
Loving the stewards in SNP tabards on a "non party political" march.
> > @noneoftheabove said:
>
> > Everyone can continue to demand "purity" for their particular views and denounce everyone else but it will get us absolutely nowhere. If we are divided, as we clearly are, we have to accept compromises, which by definition is changing views and not delivering what we originally wanted. Compromise is the only democratic solution that can work for us in this situation, otherwise at best we have paralysis and increasing anger.
> >
> > Calling people who compromise fake and liars is one of the biggest dangers to our democracy.
>
> Apart from everyone should go along with whatever nebulous policies the Tory party has decided upon this week, what compromise has Davidson offered?
She thinks we should remain. The country voted leave so she accepts leave, but wants Scotlands views and remain views taken into account. She is not in a position to offer a compromise as the negotiations are between May and Corbyn (or their teams). She is saying she will support that compromise, how is that not compromising when she thinks we should remain?
> I see the English media seem to have missed this one, what a surprise
> https://www.thenational.scot/news/17619352.glasgow-attracts-thousands-of-yes-supporters-for-pro-indy-march/
>
> What do you care what the English media says or doesn’t say? it’s Scots you need to convince.
>
> You obviously don't listen to news or media, we have to beg Westminster first and also the English media run the media in Scotland. Obviously you are one of these half witted ones that conflate England with UK and know zilch about Scotland.
>
> You seem nice.
>
> I am indeed, a gentleman and a scholar.
> PS; as my previous 21K posts will show.
I think you missed out "as <b>4 of</b> my 21k posts will show...."
> More widely when they are on question time for example, and there is a question on the NHS, and Labour point out Farage wants/wanted to privatise the NHS, they will need to respond with a policy. That policy can then be challenged, some will like it, others wont. It will be hard to maintain discipline, different candidates will just say what they want on each issue. Little of this will happen in the Euros where Farage and Brexit will dominate the conversation, but it is a big problem for them in a GE.
>
> This is classic 22nd June 2016 thinking. Everything has changed now and nobody give a fuck about policies or the lack of them. It's a culture war now. War to the knife.
>
> Parliament refusing to implement the referendum result, despite candidates being elected on a manifesto to do so, is a far bigger deal than whether leaving or not is a good or bad thing. The word "Brexit" will go down in history as a reference to the time when Parliament failed the people, not when the UK left the EU
It is a bigger thing to you (and to many, and with some cause), but it is not a bigger thing to everyone, if you are a worker without much interest in politics in a car factory that is closing down, jobs and the economy will be a bigger issue than Brexit.
> She thinks we should remain. The country voted leave so she accepts leave, but wants Scotlands views and remain views taken into account. She is not in a position to offer a compromise as the negotiations are between May and Corbyn (or their teams). She is saying she will support that compromise, how is that not compromising when she thinks we should remain?
'The country'.
There's the problem, her (and presumably your) idea of which country voted leave differs from mine.
Still, marvellous that she wants Scots to go along with a compromise stitched up by two minority parties in Scotland, led by general agreement the worst PM and leader of the opposition in recent history. Anyone sceptical of that is just a diehard purist.
> Disastrous NO DEAL Brexit under Johnson?
>
> The only routes towards No Deal without Labour enabling it are a change in the current, finely balanced, parliamentary arithmetic (Peterborough?) or for the EU to call time. The latter is a possibility in October, especially if the keen federalists are confronted with both an increasingly eurosceptic parliament and continued Brexit related disruption to their institutions.
>
> If no deal then happens and things go wrong in the UK ~ when a deal remains on the table ~ I suspect blame will be evenly spread rather than just on the Tories.
The blame should be widely shared no matter what. Labour, for example, could have killed Brexit at birth had it been so minded.
> > @noneoftheabove said:
> > She thinks we should remain. The country voted leave so she accepts leave, but wants Scotlands views and remain views taken into account. She is not in a position to offer a compromise as the negotiations are between May and Corbyn (or their teams). She is saying she will support that compromise, how is that not compromising when she thinks we should remain?
>
> 'The country'.
> There's the problem, her (and presumably your) idea of which country voted leave differs from mine.
>
> Still, marvellous that she wants Scots to go along with a compromise stitched up by two minority parties in Scotland, led by general agreement the worst PM and leader of the opposition in recent history. Anyone sceptical of that is just a diehard purist.
>
>
I have no view on Scottish independence beyond it is a matter for the Scottish people, but Scotland is currently part of the UK and voted to stay. If they want another independence vote because of Brexit that seems perfectly reasonable. The country in the context of the Brexit vote did vote to leave, that is a simple fact.
I also have absolutely no problems in anyone being sceptical or disagreeing vehemently with her or her views, I do strongly object to the idea that simply because she is compromising she is a liar and a fake. Compromising is 100% necessary in todays political climate.
> I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject.
I liked it too. Amd I fundamentally agree. Which I don't always. FTPA was a reckless act for short term party political gain.
> https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1124991181132316672
Sounds like he has a taste for using hyperbole to make his arguments more convincing, will come back to bite him.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject.
>
> I liked it too. Amd I fundamentally agree. Which I don't always. FTPA was a reckless act for short term party political gain.
Or a staging post towards the introduction of PR.
https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/1124956436021248001
Heads could take industrial action over schools cash crisis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48098028
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/john-mcdonnell-says-does-not-trust-theresa-may-accuses-negotiating/
> > @malcolmg said:
> > I see the English media seem to have missed this one, what a surprise
> > https://www.thenational.scot/news/17619352.glasgow-attracts-thousands-of-yes-supporters-for-pro-indy-march/
> >
> > What do you care what the English media says or doesn’t say? it’s Scots you need to convince.
> >
> > You obviously don't listen to news or media, we have to beg Westminster first and also the English media run the media in Scotland. Obviously you are one of these half witted ones that conflate England with UK and know zilch about Scotland.
> >
> > You seem nice.
> >
> > I am indeed, a gentleman and a scholar.
> > PS; as my previous 21K posts will show.
>
> I think you missed out "as <b>4 of</b> my 21k posts will show...."
1 or 2 tops......
Had May been able to make the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote then either it would have been passed, or the government would have fallen with it, allowing us to take a step forward to working out what to do.
As it is the position of all parties is ossified, held in an excruciating limbo while we wait for the contradiction in the government's position of confidence to play out.
> Is Nigel usually this blinky?
>
> https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/1124956436021248001
Is his first name Vladimir?
> I have no view on Scottish independence beyond it is a matter for the Scottish people, but Scotland is currently part of the UK and voted to stay. If they want another independence vote because of Brexit that seems perfectly reasonable. The country in the context of the Brexit vote did vote to leave, that is a simple fact.
>
> I also have absolutely no problems in anyone being sceptical or disagreeing vehemently with her or her views, I do strongly object to the idea that simply because she is compromising she is a liar and a fake. Compromising is 100% necessary in todays political climate.
In the spirit of compromise, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think she is in any way genuinely compromising, except as part of the unending internecine clusterfuck of the Tory party.
>
> Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Main differences are really that the Green vote is more reliably environmental all the time, and also further left than :Labour (e.g. a Green-Tory coalition is unthinkable, whereas Lab-Tory coalition have existed at local level here and there). I know Labour people who privately flirt with voting Green (seen as purists but heart in right place), whereas they're wary of the LibDems (trust issue) and actively hostile to ChUK (splitters).
If we do withdraw, of course, it makes little difference.
> I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject.
Would it be called: "How Cameron fucked Britain over. Part Three" ?
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > I’m glad people enjoyed this piece; I’m sorry it is not more detailed - space did not permit a full analysis. There’s a book in this subject.
>
> I liked it too. Amd I fundamentally agree. Which I don't always. FTPA was a reckless act for short term party political gain.
Most (?) countries have fixed terms.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > Is Nigel usually this blinky?
> >
> > https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/1124956436021248001
>
> Is his first name Vladimir?
Well Farage is damaging the Leave side so who does that benefit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greens–European_Free_Alliance
https://www.greens2019.eu
Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind.
> It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finished ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great.
>
> Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind.
Basically remainers will have to decide which party is best able to impede Farage? That will become clearer in the coming week or so. A unified block would be best but that's not happening so let's see how the polls move
https://twitter.com/gavmacn/status/1124998628320395264
> > @Jonathan said:
> > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> >
> > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
>
> He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
> > @Jonathan said:
> > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> >
> > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
>
> He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
Fancy a bet for charity? I reckon, if it comes to a vote on a compromise between may and Cornyn, more than 100 Labour MPs will vote for the deal and obey the whip.
Con 31% (-5)
Lab 31% (-1)
LD 17% (+7)
UKIP 4% (-8)
Others 17% (+7)
Indeed the very act of agreeing the deal may be the thing that finally pushes the company into administration.
Regarding your statement "You will occasionally hear people declaim about the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, a fiction that disregards the fact that the monarch has had only a backstop role for at least 200 years, that treats the executive as a surrogate monarch and that overlooks the small technical objection that this is not the way that things work in practice. It’s quite a theoretical model that not only has no grounding in present day realities but can simply be demonstrated to be incorrect. Yet it continues to hold considerable sway."
There has to be a word for the rhetorical technique where you subliminally diminish/augment something by slapping an adjective to a word, like "clean" brexit, "technical" recession or "advisory" referendum. It's not just a "theoretical" model, it's an actual fact. You of all people should know that legal fictions are not fictions in law and legal technicalities cannot be waved away by handwavium.
> Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
>
> Con 31% (-5)
> Lab 31% (-1)
> LD 17% (+7)
> UKIP 4% (-8)
> Others 17% (+7)
How does the Others break down? Or don't they say?
31-31 is somewhat at odds with 28-28 isn't it?
Hopefully the Commission which is to review it in 2020 will come to the same conclusion and rip it up.
> > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > >
> > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
> >
> > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
>
> Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
>
> I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
Its because a compromise would work in practice that the fanatics on both sides so oppose one.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finished ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great.
> >
> > Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind.
>
> Basically remainers will have to decide which party is best able to impede Farage? That will become clearer in the coming week or so. A unified block would be best but that's not happening so let's see how the polls move
All this LD or Green is a nice dilemma for you lot. One I would like to share. Unfortunately, here in the NE, thanks to no agreement, there are only 3 possible winners of seats. The Tories, Nigel's band of insouciant insurrectionists or Labour.
Sadly, only one choice for Remainers if we don't want to waste our vote entirely.
Utterly unsatisfactory.
> > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > >
> > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
> >
> > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
>
> Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
>
> I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
> >
> > Con 31% (-5)
> > Lab 31% (-1)
> > LD 17% (+7)
> > UKIP 4% (-8)
> > Others 17% (+7)
>
> How does the Others break down? Or don't they say?
> 31-31 is somewhat at odds with 28-28 isn't it?
They don't say about Others. It's not surprising the figures are different because they have to estimate how places that didn't vote this year like Scotland, Wales, London and Birmingham might have voted and there are probably lots of ways of making those extrapolations.
> The government only has the confidence of the House in the limited legal sense that it won the vote of confidence required by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. In any meaningful practical sense it does not appear to have the Confidence of the House. In other words it has confidence de jure, but not de facto. These should not have been separated.
>
> Had May been able to make the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote then either it would have been passed, or the government would have fallen with it, allowing us to take a step forward to working out what to do.
>
> As it is the position of all parties is ossified, held in an excruciating limbo while we wait for the contradiction in the government's position of confidence to play out.
Not sure it's the FTPA stopping an election. I think it's more TM's total lack of authority.
If the party had not ruled out her leading them into battle again she COULD have responded to losing the MV with a snap election. The 2/3 hurdle would have been cleared with the Tory whip plus all the Opposition voting for it.
> Doesn't mean they shouldn't try, but I like the analogy about Labour doing a deal with the Conservatives being a bit like trying to do a deal with a company about to go into administration.
>
> Indeed the very act of agreeing the deal may be the thing that finally pushes the company into administration.
Don't get Mike Ashley involved at all costs. One thing I reckon we can all agree wholeheartedly.
> Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
>
> Con 31% (-5)
> Lab 31% (-1)
> LD 17% (+7)
> UKIP 4% (-8)
> Others 17% (+7)
Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
In short, this is the end of the post Thatcher settlement. Labour, Conservative. Both facing fundamental restructures to remain relevant. Just because a party has been dominant doesn't mean that it will continue to do so.
> > @SandyRentool said:
>
> > > @SouthamObserver said:
>
> > > > @Foxy said:
>
> > > > Some anecdata:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Out for dinner with 9 colleagues last night, all quite senior. The Euro vote came up over dessert, and not raised by my good self. Much hostility to Corbyn, but strong support for the LDs. I am reconsidering my own inclination to vote Green after Fridays result, as it does look like Remainers will coalesce around the LDs. Even a self described Thatcherite was going that way.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > In other news, it is up to Brendan Rogers to make the last day of the PL interesting. I think the odds on Man City beating Leicester are too short at 1.19, I reckon this is value as a lay and Leicester may well get some points. We did draw with Liverpool at Anfield, thrashed Arsenal last week and are one of the few teams to beat Man City this season, when we won 2:1 on Boxing Day.
>
> > >
>
> > > I was going to vote Green in the Euros. Will now be voting LibDem.
>
> > >
>
> > > My guess is that CHUK will do best in London and the SE.
>
> >
>
> > Voting Green would both send a message on Brexit and on the environment. Perhaps you might reconsider?
>
>
>
> I am torn between Green and Lib Dem. There is no Lib Dem MEP for my bit of London, surprisingly so. I would like to reinforce the boost they have had. OTOH I am a bit of a Greenie myself and there is a Green MEP already. Which one would best send the message that the political class needs to take a deep breath and stop behaving like boobies?
>
> Similar dilemma here. But I suppose the Green vote will get aggregated with the Lib Dems when the results are being pored over?
Yes but the Green is almost certain to get one seat in London whereas the LibDem is 50/50. So a LibDem vote is more effective in maximising the number of Remain MEPs even though it makes no difference to the aggregate Remain vote.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
> >
> > Con 31% (-5)
> > Lab 31% (-1)
> > LD 17% (+7)
> > UKIP 4% (-8)
> > Others 17% (+7)
>
> Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
A 70% increase is hardly dismal!
> > @NickPalmer said:
> > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > > >
> > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
> > >
> > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
> >
> > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
> >
> > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
>
> Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP.
Personally I have always believed in a 'confirmatory vote' and was advocating it prior to the 23rd June 2016. There was no such committment,however, from Labour at the 2017 election . Were he to reach a deal along the lines being mooted, Corbyn could reasonably claim to be complying with the Manifesto pledge to honour the referendum result.
> > @MikeSmithson said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, there is a Lib Dem bounce in the Euro election opinion polls. I can see the attraction of voting for them, if it looked likely that the Remain vote was rallying to them as having any one of the Remain parties - Green, Lib Dems or Change UK - finished ahead of the Tories, Labour, or even the Brexit Party, would be great.
> > >
> > > Personally, though, the climate crisis is more important than Brexit and so I will accordingly vote for the Greens, who did manage to win more votes than the Lib Dems in 2014, so ought to be the first choice when it comes to choosing a single Remain party to rally behind.
> >
> > Basically remainers will have to decide which party is best able to impede Farage? That will become clearer in the coming week or so. A unified block would be best but that's not happening so let's see how the polls move
>
> All this LD or Green is a nice dilemma for you lot. One I would like to share. Unfortunately, here in the NE, thanks to no agreement, there are only 3 possible winners of seats. The Tories, Nigel's band of insouciant insurrectionists or Labour.
> Sadly, only one choice for Remainers if we don't want to waste our vote entirely.
> Utterly unsatisfactory.
It is liberating too. While the chance of a pro Remain MEP is small in the NE, the popular vote will also make the news, so vote your favourite flavour of Pro Remain between LD, Green and CHUK.
http://www.haslemereherald.com/article.cfm?id=135717&headline=Local Election 2019: Tories lose Waverley majority on historic day for borough&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019
> > @AndyJS said:
> > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
> >
> > Con 31% (-5)
> > Lab 31% (-1)
> > LD 17% (+7)
> > UKIP 4% (-8)
> > Others 17% (+7)
>
> Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
I don't understand your "dismal" comment. It's true the LDs got 27% at the 1994 local elections and they haven't got anywhere near that level recently.
Suppose a Con-Lab deal were struck: how much time would be required to pass a vote and avert the European election?
> > @anothernick said:
> > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
> > > >
> > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
> > >
> > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
> > >
> > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
> >
> > Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP.
>
> Personally I have always believed in a 'confirmatory vote' and was advocating it prior to the 23rd June 2016. There was no such committment,however, from Labour at the 2017 election . Were he to reach a deal along the lines being mooted, Corbyn could reasonably claim to be complying with the Manifesto pledge to honour the referendum result.
Agreeing a Deal including a Customs Union close alignment to SM and workers rights has been party policy since last years Conference. Anyone mardying off has no idea what compromise means.
But if it was passed before July, they would not take their seats.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @AndyJS said:
> > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
> > >
> > > Con 31% (-5)
> > > Lab 31% (-1)
> > > LD 17% (+7)
> > > UKIP 4% (-8)
> > > Others 17% (+7)
> >
> > Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
>
> I don't understand your "dismal" comment. It's true the LDs got 27% at the 1994 local elections and they haven't got anywhere near that level recently.
The LibDems were continually above 20% throughout the 2000s in local elections.
> Neither Labour nor Tory parties have any way out of this. Bizarrely the leadership's could now do a deal from a policy perspective but at the cost of splitting both their parties. So that's out. Both parties utterly detest their existing leader but for different reasons have no way to remove them without splitting. So that's out. Both parties have electorates demanding absolute polar opposite policies from the same politicians. Both think they can triangulate. So that's out.
>
> In short, this is the end of the post Thatcher settlement. Labour, Conservative. Both facing fundamental restructures to remain relevant. Just because a party has been dominant doesn't mean that it will continue to do so.
------------------------------------------------
Not sure your second paragraph is correct, but your first one is an apt summary of the awkwardness of the present position.
> Write-up of the Waverley election where Nick P was standing.
>
> http://www.haslemereherald.com/article.cfm?id=135717&headline=Local Election 2019: Tories lose Waverley majority on historic day for borough&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019
An 'ex Nottingham MP'
You must be rather dizzy, spinning so much!
> > @anothernick said:
> > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
> > > >
> > > > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
> > >
> > > Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
> > >
> > > I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
> >
> > Disagree with Nick on this one. Seems to me that the chances of Corbyn persuading the PLP to accept a deal with the Tories are minimal. Cannot see people such as Watson, Starmer, Thornbery, Clive Lewis, etc etc accepting it (unless it included a "confirmatory vote" of course). Any other deal would lead to his instant transformation into Ramsay MacCorbyn and probably a substantial split. I would not stay in the party myself, and I've been a member for more than forty years and there are many more like me in my large London CLP.
>
> Personally I have always believed in a 'confirmatory vote' and was advocating it prior to the 23rd June 2016. There was no such committment,however, from Labour at the 2017 election . Were he to reach a deal along the lines being mooted, Corbyn could reasonably claim to be complying with the Manifesto pledge to honour the referendum result.
Actually I don't expect a deal to be agreed. Neither leader can deliver their parliamentaryarty so a deal would lead only serve to illustrate how impotent both of them are. The result of the local elections, which will be reinforced by the Euros, is that both no dealers and revoke/remain/2nd referendum suppprters are more certain than ever that they are right, compromise is now even less likely than it was before. The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
> > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > @SouthamObserver said:
> > > > I don't see how Labour stays together if Corbyn does a deal with the Tories and I don't see how such a deal gets through the Commons. So why would Corbyn do it? There is no upside for him. Here's hoping, though.
> > >
> > > I think he could whip it, the upside is to be seen to be statesmanlike and more importantly to start to move things on from Brexit onto more fertile ground for Labour.
> >
> > He will most certainly whip, but how many Labour MPs would obey the whip? I would estimate less than 100.
>
> Disagree - I think fewer than 100 would revolt. He'd get virtually all the lefties plus virtually all the loyalists.
>
> I agree with kle4 that it's weird that coming to a compromise is seen as sleazy. The problem both in Parliament and in the country in general is that too many people have decided that there is only One True Position, and everything else must be rejected as outrageous. Since any one position only has minority support, it means everything gets shot down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and while I do get that I find it disheartening, here and elsewhere in fact, to see people treating the possibility itself as wrong somehow. I might not agree with a political compromise, but that's a different matter entirely.
> > @AndyJS said:
>
> > > @another_richard said:
>
> > > > @AndyJS said:
>
> > > > Rallings and Thrasher have published their estimate of the equivalent national vote shares at the local elections. As usual, they're slightly different to the BBC figures:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Con 31% (-5)
>
> > > > Lab 31% (-1)
>
> > > > LD 17% (+7)
>
> > > > UKIP 4% (-8)
>
> > > > Others 17% (+7)
>
> > >
>
> > > Those are much better for the the Conservatives and Labour and pretty dismal for the LibDems.
>
> >
>
> > I don't understand your "dismal" comment. It's true the LDs got 27% at the 1994 local elections and they haven't got anywhere near that level recently.
>
>
>
> The LibDems were continually above 20% throughout the 2000s in local elections.
>
> So the best NEV in a decade is "dismal"?
>
> You must be rather dizzy, spinning so much!
You're sounding increasingly desperate.
Even with the ideal circumstances of this year the LibDems still can't reach the level they regarded as normal for over a decade.
Your recovery is slower and weaker than what the Conservatives managed under Hague and Labour managed under EdM.