Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Politics in a democratic one party state

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Politics in a democratic one party state

 

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    First as in the next referendum
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    surbiton said:

    First as in the next referendum

    Bless.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Third like Labour in Scotland....
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Mortimer said:

    Third like Labour in Scotland....

    Just in time. Soon it might be fourth with Kezia and Jeremy in charge.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Good header, Mr. Meeks. Let's hope it doesn't founder on Brexit.
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    edited March 2017
    Two things will lead to a much more competitive situation. A new Labour leader (they could not be any worse), and a recession (which will come as they always do). The govt has already shown itself to be unwilling/unable to take measures which hurt (NI increases for one). As always the wheel will turn, although it may take a while.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    Is AM a Labour supporter? I didn't think him affiliated to a party.

    Even as an LD I see it being a long haul back, though with politics as volatile as it is, 50 seats is not inconceivable in 2020.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    There are other examples of One Party democracies, South Africa and Singapore come to mind.

    But I'm not convinced the UK is in that position. the level of dominance 43% ish in the poles is not that big, and the opposition weakness is at least partly attributed to leaders who may not be there that long.

    In terms of the big pitcher, I think the LD could be at the start of a long rode to power. maybe: A good third place finish in 2020, overtake Lab in 2025, and in government in 2030.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Essexit said:

    surbiton said:

    First as in the next referendum

    Bless.
    Is the next referendum on AV?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    The most likely thing to happen is actually the most boring -- namely, Labour will simply recover.

    The death of the Canadian Liberals was announced in 2011 when Jack Layton's NDP forced them into third place, and so (for the first time) the NDP were the Official Opposition.

    What happened? The Liberals ditched their leader, found an electoral winner in 2013 and then were back in power **just two years** later having gained 150 seats.

    The pendulum can swing violently.

    Two years was all it took to transform the Liberals from third Place Losers to Winners.

    Two years. And a new, pretty, smiling, leader.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    A democratic one party state by default, due to an utterly ineffectual opposition. If, and when Corbyn goes, the parliamentary balance will quickly rectify itself imho, possibly as early as GE2020.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited March 2017
    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    Easily. Maybe not in Scotland though.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited March 2017
    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    Temporarily, perhaps.

    I think it's unlikely those switchers would actually vote Con in a GE though. They're ultimate NOTA voters who are suspicious and paranoid of *the establishment*

    Basically, I think the opinion poll respondents who have already moved from UKIP>Con post-referendum are likely to be more significantly more sticky than the ones who would now go Con in the absence of a UKIP option.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    BigRich said:

    There are other examples of One Party democracies, South Africa and Singapore come to mind.

    But I'm not convinced the UK is in that position. the level of dominance 43% ish in the poles is not that big, and the opposition weakness is at least partly attributed to leaders who may not be there that long.

    In terms of the big pitcher, I think the LD could be at the start of a long rode to power. maybe: A good third place finish in 2020, overtake Lab in 2025, and in government in 2030.

    Singapore is hardly a democracy. Pay And Pay controls all organs of the state, including the press.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited March 2017
    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    I suspect that most of the pro-Tory UKIP voters have already switched back and that what remains might be more Labour-friendly. The high levels of support for the Tories - and Labour - in the 1950s was artificial in that over 60% of constituencies only had two candidates - Labour and Conservative. Both received a considerable number of second preference votes from people who shifted to their own parties when they eventually entered the field.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    surbiton said:

    First as in the next referendum

    Oohh - is that one going to be on AV???
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    Easily. Maybe not in Scotland though.
    I agree - though I could see a significant recovery there too to 25% plus.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    surbiton said:

    Mortimer said:

    Third like Labour in Scotland....

    Just in time. Soon it might be fourth with Kezia and Jeremy in charge.
    Worse performance than the Lib Dems? can't see it - but it would be richly deserved.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2017
    Floater said:

    surbiton said:

    Mortimer said:

    Third like Labour in Scotland....

    Just in time. Soon it might be fourth with Kezia and Jeremy in charge.
    Worse performance than the Lib Dems? can't see it - but it would be richly deserved.
    The Scottish Greens have been very close to Labour in recent polling. Scottish LDs still in the doldrums, though.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Danny565 said:

    Floater said:

    surbiton said:

    Mortimer said:

    Third like Labour in Scotland....

    Just in time. Soon it might be fourth with Kezia and Jeremy in charge.
    Worse performance than the Lib Dems? can't see it - but it would be richly deserved.
    The Scottish Greens have been very close to Labour in recent polling. Scottish LDs still in the doldrums, though.
    As things stand now, I am not sure why someone would vote Labour and split the social democratic/left vote. The SNP adequately represents that position.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Just realised I am approaching 10000 posts. Is that post-Vanilla ? I cannot believe I have posted that many.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    surbiton said:

    BigRich said:

    There are other examples of One Party democracies, South Africa and Singapore come to mind.

    But I'm not convinced the UK is in that position. the level of dominance 43% ish in the poles is not that big, and the opposition weakness is at least partly attributed to leaders who may not be there that long.

    In terms of the big pitcher, I think the LD could be at the start of a long rode to power. maybe: A good third place finish in 2020, overtake Lab in 2025, and in government in 2030.

    Singapore is hardly a democracy. Pay And Pay controls all organs of the state, including the press.
    Singapore at not be a perfect democracy, but then who is? They do have elections the votes are counted and whoever get the most votes wins, There is no stuffing fake ballots in to ballot boxes. it just happens to be that they always vote for the peoples action party.

    Now the PLP may take to extreme things many party do that make them more likely to win gerrymandering seats, undue influence the press, and using government spending in marginal constituency's to name just 3.

    But they also vote for the PLP because the nation is, well run, and rich.

    I suspect, but can not prove, it is as much the latter as the former.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    He was a Green as I recall. Not sure if that remains true.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    surbiton said:

    Just realised I am approaching 10000 posts. Is that post-Vanilla ? I cannot believe I have posted that many.

    It feels like you've posted more.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    ttps://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/845977709595557889

    Excellent. Top Trump trolling!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837

    The most likely thing to happen is actually the most boring -- namely, Labour will simply recover.

    The death of the Canadian Liberals was announced in 2011 when Jack Layton's NDP forced them into third place, and so (for the first time) the NDP were the Official Opposition.

    What happened? The Liberals ditched their leader, found an electoral winner in 2013 and then were back in power **just two years** later having gained 150 seats.

    The pendulum can swing violently.

    Two years was all it took to transform the Liberals from third Place Losers to Winners.

    Two years. And a new, pretty, smiling, leader.

    Same thing happened to Canadian Tories in 1993. They came fifth with two seats and were fifth again in 97 and 2000.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    dixiedean said:

    The most likely thing to happen is actually the most boring -- namely, Labour will simply recover.

    The death of the Canadian Liberals was announced in 2011 when Jack Layton's NDP forced them into third place, and so (for the first time) the NDP were the Official Opposition.

    What happened? The Liberals ditched their leader, found an electoral winner in 2013 and then were back in power **just two years** later having gained 150 seats.

    The pendulum can swing violently.

    Two years was all it took to transform the Liberals from third Place Losers to Winners.

    Two years. And a new, pretty, smiling, leader.

    Same thing happened to Canadian Tories in 1993. They came fifth with two seats and were fifth again in 97 and 2000.
    And, as a Twitter account is reminding us, it wasn't THAT long ago that the apparently-invincible British Tories were thought to be finished:

    https://twitter.com/newdawn1997/status/844847391480037377
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2017
    And, hell, it was mere MONTHS ago that the German SPD was almost 20 points behind Merkel's party.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    And in other news, flying pigs have been spotted in Dartford.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    Quite. As I've argued for over a year, Leave winning unites the Tory party far more than a Remain would have done...
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Mortimer said:

    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    And in other news, flying pigs have been spotted in Dartford.
    In a general election, I would expect Labour to manage circa 28% under Corbyn. Clive Lewis would probably raise that to circa 32% with Starmer or Jarvis taking it to circa 35%.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Mortimer said:

    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    And in other news, flying pigs have been spotted in Dartford.
    It is not impossible, far from it. Brexit may be a total economic disaster by then. For example, see Telegraph article on customs and exports from UK. There is no provision for electronic customs at EU border for a country other than those in EU or EEA:

    "If it had been honestly explained last summer that leaving the EU would mean not just saying goodbye to all the political stuff but also the sight of trucks backing up from Dover to London, and thousands of exporters finding it impossible to continue trading with the EU at all, a hefty majority would have voted to Remain."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/25/dangerous-brexit-ultras-pushing-theresa-may-towards-catastrophe/
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    Quite. As I've argued for over a year, Leave winning unites the Tory party far more than a Remain would have done...
    No - had there been a full slate of Liberal candidates , neither the Tories nor Labour would have reached 45% in the 1950s.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    Quite. As I've argued for over a year, Leave winning unites the Tory party far more than a Remain would have done...
    Good to see you back. I read that you were banned. Or was it just a sin bin? Or voluntary?

    Sorry I'll miss your Article 50 shindig.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    And in other news, flying pigs have been spotted in Dartford.
    In a general election, I would expect Labour to manage circa 28% under Corbyn. Clive Lewis would probably raise that to circa 32% with Starmer or Jarvis taking it to circa 35%.
    Don't forget Yvette. We are due, surely, a woman as Labour leader by next time.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    And in other news, flying pigs have been spotted in Dartford.
    In a general election, I would expect Labour to manage circa 28% under Corbyn. Clive Lewis would probably raise that to circa 32% with Starmer or Jarvis taking it to circa 35%.
    Don't forget Yvette. We are due, surely, a woman as Labour leader by next time.
    I will never vote on a gender basis, and on principle I withold my support from Labour candidates selected from an All Woman Shortlist.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    Quite. As I've argued for over a year, Leave winning unites the Tory party far more than a Remain would have done...
    I think you are absolutely right on that.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    More customs inspection is good - might be able to stop the drugs pouring into the country from Holland, our very own mexican border.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 839
    Mr Meeks is surely jumping the gun. The opposition is growing, the Conservatives have peaked, UKIP is in decline. It will be hidden in May because the Conservatives should regain many seats they lost in 2013, particularly to UKIP. The joker in the pack is the Liberal Democrats. They will surely make gains but how many 25, 50, 100 even 200. Place your bets here.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    PAW said:

    More customs inspection is good - might be able to stop the drugs pouring into the country from Holland, our very own mexican border.

    Do you really think they come in through major ports?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Afternoon all :)

    I have to say while I appreciate Antifrank's latest missive, I couldn't disagree with it more.

    We've been here before both in the 1980s and for much of the 2000s. Periods of dominance by one party seem to be becoming the norm but within that there are distinct phases. The Labour Party is no more irrelevant now than it was in 1983 or were the Conservatives in 2001.

    The journey back to power for an Opposition is multi-faceted - a part of it is down to the failings of the Government party whether down to an extreme external event such as the financial crash or down to indiscipline such as in the early 60s and mid 90s.

    By 1997 the Conservative Government had reached a point of political collapse even though the economy was going well. In 2010, by contrast, the economic reputation of the Labour Government was in tatters even though politically it still seemed cohesive.

    The other aspect is the re-invention of the Opposition as a credible alternative Government - the failings of the Government will help but as 1992 showed, no matter how poor the Government may be or seem, if the Opposition cannot convince the electorate it would be any better, it doesn't matter.

    Labour's previous journey back to Government began with the election of Neil Kinnock - the Conservative journey to 2010 began with the ousting of IDS in 2003. The process of re-invention and renewal doesn't end with the person who started it but it has to start. Smith and later Blair built on the modernisation begun by Kinnock and Mandelson. Howard begat Cameron whose lovebombing of the LDs in the autumn of 2005 proved so successful.

    Labour needs to begin the journey and that won't happen with Corbyn. It may not obviously be with his immediate successor but as with Kinnock and Howard, that person may be able to take more resistant elements with him/her because of their own track record.

    The, I suspect, post 2020 environment may be more favourable for a re-branding of Labour in Opposition and that combined with the inevitable problems, gaffes, indiscretions, blunders and just weariness with the same set of Conservative faces may enable Labour to be a potent challenger in 2025.
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    Anyone writing an article which suggests the combination of Bojo, Liam Fox and David Davies is going to prove to be eminently successful at their job of making Brexit work.. is very brave.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    justin124 said:

    Under a new leader there would be a serious prospect of Labour polling circa 35% in 2020.

    And in other news, flying pigs have been spotted in Dartford.
    In a general election, I would expect Labour to manage circa 28% under Corbyn. Clive Lewis would probably raise that to circa 32% with Starmer or Jarvis taking it to circa 35%.
    I don't see any evidence that any replacement for Corbyn could seriously threaten a GE. Granted, any Labour MP would bring an immediate polling improvement, apart from maybe the hideous Diane Abbott or IRA apologist John McDonnell. But Labour supporters keep mentioning Starmer or Jarvis. Why? Neither of them are engaging people, neither of them seem particularly blessed with any leadership skills, and neither of them are particularly telegenic. Starmer does a good impression of an assembly line automaton, and Mr 'not sure' Jarvis strikes me as being a bit of a lightweight. So he's been in the Armed Forces. So what?

    Clive Lewis at least comes across as affable, and charismatic. Unlike the repulsive Yvette Cooper, who has a special talent for hectoring piety, or Lisa Nandy, another so-called 'rising star', who looks and talks like the President of a sixth form student union. None of these guys can win a general election. The next Labour PM is probably not even an MP yet.

    But what does it matter? We all know that the Labour membership won't crown anyone unless they have a far left agenda. So that rules out any of the centrists (not that they are any good anyway), and if an extremist like Corbyn is chosen, the public won't vote for them at a GE. You're stuck in a lake of diarrhoea without a paddle or even a boat.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    Quite. As I've argued for over a year, Leave winning unites the Tory party far more than a Remain would have done...
    No - had there been a full slate of Liberal candidates , neither the Tories nor Labour would have reached 45% in the 1950s.
    Quite a few "Tories" were actually National Liberals in the 1950's, running on a common ticket. I think Heseltine started this way, and there were a few into the Sixties.

    The Liberals doubled their voteshare in 74 from 10 years earlier in large part by running a full slate.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    surbiton said:

    First as in the next referendum

    So the next election won't be about Europe, Scottish independence or electoral reform.

    Abolition of the monarchy?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Anyone writing an article which suggests the combination of Bojo, Liam Fox and David Davies is going to prove to be eminently successful at their job of making Brexit work.. is very brave.

    LIKE!!!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745



    Quite a few "Tories" were actually National Liberals in the 1950's, running on a common ticket. I think Heseltine started this way, and there were a few into the Sixties.

    The Liberals doubled their voteshare in 74 from 10 years earlier in large part by running a full slate.

    The first part is true - John Nott is another example though he was a Liberal National when first elected if memory serves.

    The Liberals never had a full slate of candidates - the Alliance managed a full slate in 1983. In 1964, there were 365 Liberal candidates, in 1970 332 and in February 1974 517 candidates rising to 577 in October 1974.

    The increase in the Liberal vote from 1970 to Feb 1974 can't be explained away on more candidates but the 1964 and Feb 1974 performances are comparable as you say but it was more candidates rather than an actual full slate.

    It can be argued the Conservatives lost in 1964 because of the slippage of votes to the Liberals and won in 1970 by winning those votes (and more) back.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Interesting article, Mr. Meeks. Labour has two critical things to address. First off, its atrocious leader. Secondly, the problem of how it holds together its two core voting groups of the working class and the liberal metropolitan types. If it could resolve those problems, then it could bounce back a lot faster than people think, especially as a government not held to account becomes sloppy, complacent and makes mistake that a future competent opposition can then exploit.

    Labour's problem is that it's leader, whilst a little old, is a vegetarian cyclist rather than a chain-smoking lion-tamer, so they can't rely on him to simply pop his clogs; and its wider leadership seems very in tune with the sort of people who might buy sticks from a shop but less well-attuned to white van man.

    F1: my post-race analysis is up here:
    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/australia-post-race-analysis-2017.html

    Worth noting that some excellent tips were offered by Mr. M, and Mr. Putney and myself also had some suggestions (overall, the weekend was quite profitable). Always good to see new comments, questions and suggestions, so do give it a read.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    FF43 said:

    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"

    Yes, when Jean-Claude Juncker observed that Cameron had destroyed the UK it wasn't a joke.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I have to say while I appreciate Antifrank's latest missive, I couldn't disagree with it more.

    We've been here before both in the 1980s and for much of the 2000s. Periods of dominance by one party seem to be becoming the norm but within that there are distinct phases. The Labour Party is no more irrelevant now than it was in 1983 or were the Conservatives in 2001.

    I'm too young to remember 1983 but Labour now feels much more irrelevant than the Tories in 2001, who were at least opposing Blair's eurofederalistic desires.

    If he'd held and won a referendum on euro membership and the Tories had still been opposing it, that would have made them as irrelevant as the LDs are now.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    At the last five elections in which I have been called upon to cast my vote, I have voted for candidates from four different parties. In 2015 I voted Lib Dem.

    As of today's date, I have absolutely no idea who I will vote for at the next general election. Spoiling my ballot paper is a very live possibility.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    FF43 said:

    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"

    Yes, when Jean-Claude Juncker observed that Cameron had destroyed the UK it wasn't a joke.
    ROFL

    amusing from the bloke who has actually presided over the break up of the EU
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745



    I'm too young to remember 1983 but Labour now feels much more irrelevant than the Tories in 2001, who were at least opposing Blair's eurofederalistic desires.

    If he'd held and won a referendum on euro membership and the Tories had still been opposing it, that would have made them as irrelevant as the LDs are now.

    A fair bit of wishful thinking there, my friend.

    The Conservative message from the likes of Hague and Portillo in 2001 was "seven days to save the pound" which was more like "seven days to save us from a pounding". The Conservatives made a net gain of one seat from 165 to 166 so many fewer than Corbyn's Labour Party (or indeed Kinnock's Labour Party).

    In many seats, the Conservatives actually went backward from 1997 (incredible as that may seem). Yes, the Conservatives were utterly and completely irrelevant then and to compound their irrelevance they then chose the hapless IDS as their leader.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    @Morris_Dancer - I actually got up to watch the race this morning just to see if things are any better and I think this season could be interesting. Oddly, I actually think the lack of overtaking is a plus. One of my complaints is that since they brought in DRS, overtaking has been easy which has meant that teams haven't had to worry about track position so much. I doubt Lewis and Mercedes will make such a mistake again.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    stodge said:



    I'm too young to remember 1983 but Labour now feels much more irrelevant than the Tories in 2001, who were at least opposing Blair's eurofederalistic desires.

    If he'd held and won a referendum on euro membership and the Tories had still been opposing it, that would have made them as irrelevant as the LDs are now.

    A fair bit of wishful thinking there, my friend.

    The Conservative message from the likes of Hague and Portillo in 2001 was "seven days to save the pound" which was more like "seven days to save us from a pounding".
    If they hadn't kept the pressure on - for instance, if Clarke had been their leader - Blair could have taken us into the euro without a referendum.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    FF43 said:

    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"

    Yes, when Jean-Claude Juncker observed that Cameron had destroyed the UK it wasn't a joke.
    ROFL

    amusing from the bloke who has actually presided over the break up of the EU
    Not break up, just the loss of one sulky member.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 86, I watched the highlights, and, to be fair, Perez did make a few overtakes, Sainz was looking fast. I think a combination of general attrition, wide gaps at the front and Ricciardo not starting properly reduced the number.

    I agree on DRS. Brawn has singled it out as a bad thing, I believe, so it may be axed in coming years.

    However, its importance or otherwise this year will be plainer to see at China. The circuit there has a massive straight, whereas Australia's DRS zones were both too small to be much use.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    FF43 said:

    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"

    Yes, when Jean-Claude Juncker observed that Cameron had destroyed the UK it wasn't a joke.
    ROFL

    amusing from the bloke who has actually presided over the break up of the EU
    Not break up, just the loss of one sulky member.
    he's just lost 14% of his population and is making threats about any other defectors

    he's hardly in a position to criticise others.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Dr. Foxinsox, the second biggest contributor is not just 'one sulky member'.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    stodge said:



    I'm too young to remember 1983 but Labour now feels much more irrelevant than the Tories in 2001, who were at least opposing Blair's eurofederalistic desires.

    If he'd held and won a referendum on euro membership and the Tories had still been opposing it, that would have made them as irrelevant as the LDs are now.

    A fair bit of wishful thinking there, my friend.

    The Conservative message from the likes of Hague and Portillo in 2001 was "seven days to save the pound" which was more like "seven days to save us from a pounding". The Conservatives made a net gain of one seat from 165 to 166 so many fewer than Corbyn's Labour Party (or indeed Kinnock's Labour Party).

    In many seats, the Conservatives actually went backward from 1997 (incredible as that may seem). Yes, the Conservatives were utterly and completely irrelevant then and to compound their irrelevance they then chose the hapless IDS as their leader.

    Even in 2001 I still assumed that eventually there would be a recession and the Tories would get back into power because Labour would mess things up. I don't think the same is true for Labour now. Yes, the Tories will mess things up at some point, but I wouldn't assume that it'll be the Labour Party who benefits.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745

    <
    If they hadn't kept the pressure on - for instance, if Clarke had been their leader - Blair could have taken us into the euro without a referendum.

    Absolute nonsense.

    The main obstacle to Euro membership within the Government was Gordon Brown. He wasn't the only one less than convinced by the virtue of joining the Euro but he was firmly opposed and since Blair had effectively sub-contracted the running of the economy to Brown the Chancellor's opposition kept us out.

    The Conservatives had absolutely nothing to do with it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    FF43 said:

    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"

    Yes, when Jean-Claude Juncker observed that Cameron had destroyed the UK it wasn't a joke.
    ROFL

    amusing from the bloke who has actually presided over the break up of the EU
    Not break up, just the loss of one sulky member.
    he's just lost 14% of his population and is making threats about any other defectors

    he's hardly in a position to criticise others.
    It's interesting how Brexiteers insist on talking in the past tense about events that have yet to happen.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    Mr. 86, I watched the highlights, and, to be fair, Perez did make a few overtakes, Sainz was looking fast. I think a combination of general attrition, wide gaps at the front and Ricciardo not starting properly reduced the number.

    I agree on DRS. Brawn has singled it out as a bad thing, I believe, so it may be axed in coming years.

    However, its importance or otherwise this year will be plainer to see at China. The circuit there has a massive straight, whereas Australia's DRS zones were both too small to be much use.

    I can't stand Albert Park, it's a thoroughly dull circuit. Adelaide was much better.

    I know it's difficult to engineer such a scenario in terms of overtaking aids, but the best season in my opinion was 2009 when only three teams (McLaren, Ferrari and Williams) had KERS. Clearly Brawn and RedBull made the right call in not using it, it made for interesting races whereby Hamilton qualified down the grid but could then fight his way through the field. What was really funny was when rival drivers complained about Hamilton's ability to do this - no one ever dared to say "well ask your team to give you KERS!"
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    FF43 said:

    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"

    Yes, when Jean-Claude Juncker observed that Cameron had destroyed the UK it wasn't a joke.
    ROFL

    amusing from the bloke who has actually presided over the break up of the EU
    Not break up, just the loss of one sulky member.
    he's just lost 14% of his population and is making threats about any other defectors

    he's hardly in a position to criticise others.
    It's interesting how Brexiteers insist on talking in the past tense about events that have yet to happen.
    it's a fact we voted to leave last year and juncker was EU president
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Dr. Foxinsox, the second biggest contributor is not just 'one sulky member'.

    It is sad, but not a catastrophe, the break up of a union always reduces trade between both former partners, but the loss of England and Wales is not the break up of the EU.

    In any case it seems the Brexit bill will cover the budget for a good few years.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    If UKIP do go under, that would probably take Conservative support into the high forties. That is, the kind of support they had in the 1950s, but this time with a main opponent struggling to get to 30%.
    Quite. As I've argued for over a year, Leave winning unites the Tory party far more than a Remain would have done...
    No - had there been a full slate of Liberal candidates , neither the Tories nor Labour would have reached 45% in the 1950s.
    Quite a few "Tories" were actually National Liberals in the 1950's, running on a common ticket. I think Heseltine started this way, and there were a few into the Sixties.

    The Liberals doubled their voteshare in 74 from 10 years earlier in large part by running a full slate.
    Yes - but by the 1950s National Liberals were seen as de facto Tories and were often opposed by Liberal candidates. This continued through the 1960s.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Forecast Saarland

    ZDF heute

    @ZDFheute

    Prognose zur #LTWSaar: CDU 40%, SPD 30%, Linke 13%, AfD 6%, Grüne 4,5%, FDP 3,5%, Piraten 1% #Saarland #zdfwahl
    5:00 PM - 26 Mar 2017
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    looks like red red green

    Angies out
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    Dr. Foxinsox, the second biggest contributor is not just 'one sulky member'.

    One sulky member who is the second biggest contributor then.


  • As of today's date, I have absolutely no idea who I will vote for at the next general election. Spoiling my ballot paper is a very live possibility.

    It's easily the most likely possibility for me. Second most likely would be to stay away altogether although I'm not sure I have it in me to do that.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    tlg86 said:

    stodge said:



    I'm too young to remember 1983 but Labour now feels much more irrelevant than the Tories in 2001, who were at least opposing Blair's eurofederalistic desires.

    If he'd held and won a referendum on euro membership and the Tories had still been opposing it, that would have made them as irrelevant as the LDs are now.

    A fair bit of wishful thinking there, my friend.

    The Conservative message from the likes of Hague and Portillo in 2001 was "seven days to save the pound" which was more like "seven days to save us from a pounding". The Conservatives made a net gain of one seat from 165 to 166 so many fewer than Corbyn's Labour Party (or indeed Kinnock's Labour Party).

    In many seats, the Conservatives actually went backward from 1997 (incredible as that may seem). Yes, the Conservatives were utterly and completely irrelevant then and to compound their irrelevance they then chose the hapless IDS as their leader.

    Even in 2001 I still assumed that eventually there would be a recession and the Tories would get back into power because Labour would mess things up. I don't think the same is true for Labour now. Yes, the Tories will mess things up at some point, but I wouldn't assume that it'll be the Labour Party who benefits.
    I think you underestimate the massive inertia in our (or any) political system.

    Or perhaps another way of putting it is that Brexit & Trump are the exceptions that prove the rule.

    My prediction is that Brexit will not be as bad (or as good) as is claimed. It is in almost everyone in authority's interest to minimise disruption, so there will be very little.

    The Labour Party will recover (probably surprisingly quickly), and the political landscape in 2022 will not look very different from 2012.


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: incidentally, if anyone followed Mr. B and cunningly backed Ferrari for the title, that's now very hedgeable. To be honest, I think the price might drop even more. A lot depends on how things go in China.

    Quite pleased with how Australia went. First green result for me since 2013 at the season's first race, although it's worth noting I finished behind overall for that year, so best not to get too giddy.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Forecast Saarland

    ZDF heute

    @ZDFheute

    Prognose zur #LTWSaar: CDU 40%, SPD 30%, Linke 13%, AfD 6%, Grüne 4,5%, FDP 3,5%, Piraten 1% #Saarland #zdfwahl
    5:00 PM - 26 Mar 2017

    Is there a 5% threshold in state elections too? a bit borderline for AfD if so.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    stodge said:



    Quite a few "Tories" were actually National Liberals in the 1950's, running on a common ticket. I think Heseltine started this way, and there were a few into the Sixties.

    The Liberals doubled their voteshare in 74 from 10 years earlier in large part by running a full slate.

    The first part is true - John Nott is another example though he was a Liberal National when first elected if memory serves.

    The Liberals never had a full slate of candidates - the Alliance managed a full slate in 1983. In 1964, there were 365 Liberal candidates, in 1970 332 and in February 1974 517 candidates rising to 577 in October 1974.

    The increase in the Liberal vote from 1970 to Feb 1974 can't be explained away on more candidates but the 1964 and Feb 1974 performances are comparable as you say but it was more candidates rather than an actual full slate.

    It can be argued the Conservatives lost in 1964 because of the slippage of votes to the Liberals and won in 1970 by winning those votes (and more) back.
    Labour also lost votes to the Liberals in 1964 - most obviously in seats where there had been no Liberal candidate in 1959.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 86, aye, it's not the best circuit (although also far from the worst).

    I'd forgotten the season when only some teams had KERS.

    Was pleased Vettel could stick so closely to Hamilton on the early laps. The German said, post-race, that the air disruption was worse but mechanical grip was better.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    MrsB said:

    As he is a Labour supporter, I can understand Mr Meeks claiming the Lib Dems are irrelevant. However, we are slowly clawing our way back.

    Unlike UKIP and Labour, who seem to have decided to go in the opposite direction.

    I am not sure how long UKIP can continue. They have lost Banks as a donor, they have now lost their Short money, and it looks as though they might have to pay money back to the EU, to Banks, and maybe even be fined by the Electoral Commission. Unless they find some cash, they are going to go under.

    At the last five elections in which I have been called upon to cast my vote, I have voted for candidates from four different parties. In 2015 I voted Lib Dem.

    As of today's date, I have absolutely no idea who I will vote for at the next general election. Spoiling my ballot paper is a very live possibility.
    Lib Dems. You know that you want to...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    looks like red red green

    Angies out

    More like CDU/SPD. This is a good result for CDU.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Is that a swing TO the CDU?!?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    justin124 said:

    stodge said:



    Quite a few "Tories" were actually National Liberals in the 1950's, running on a common ticket. I think Heseltine started this way, and there were a few into the Sixties.

    The Liberals doubled their voteshare in 74 from 10 years earlier in large part by running a full slate.

    The first part is true - John Nott is another example though he was a Liberal National when first elected if memory serves.

    The Liberals never had a full slate of candidates - the Alliance managed a full slate in 1983. In 1964, there were 365 Liberal candidates, in 1970 332 and in February 1974 517 candidates rising to 577 in October 1974.

    The increase in the Liberal vote from 1970 to Feb 1974 can't be explained away on more candidates but the 1964 and Feb 1974 performances are comparable as you say but it was more candidates rather than an actual full slate.

    It can be argued the Conservatives lost in 1964 because of the slippage of votes to the Liberals and won in 1970 by winning those votes (and more) back.
    Labour also lost votes to the Liberals in 1964 - most obviously in seats where there had been no Liberal candidate in 1959.
    Mostly in 64 the Tories were looking very tired and scandal ridden. Voters wanted change. In time that will come to Mays Tories. Europe is not going away as an issue, after all our relationship with the continent is one of the perenial political issues of the last 2 millennia.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited March 2017

    Forecast Saarland

    ZDF heute

    @ZDFheute

    Prognose zur #LTWSaar: CDU 40%, SPD 30%, Linke 13%, AfD 6%, Grüne 4,5%, FDP 3,5%, Piraten 1% #Saarland #zdfwahl
    5:00 PM - 26 Mar 2017

    Is there a 5% threshold in state elections too? a bit borderline for AfD if so.

    if the poll is correct only 4 parties will make it to the Landtag

    CDU, SPD, die Linke and AfD

    it depends how reliable the polls are, typically they have understated the small parties especially the AfD

    In the elections last year the AfD ended up improvng on the exit polls.

    I'd say the borderline party is the greens on 4.5%. If they get more the make the Parlt and then red red green becomes a real prospect. The SPD have underpreformed in this state but the CDU are struggling to find anyone to coalesce with bar the SPD.

    The SPD probably have the most options
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I have to say while I appreciate Antifrank's latest missive, I couldn't disagree with it more.

    We've been here before both in the 1980s and for much of the 2000s. Periods of dominance by one party seem to be becoming the norm but within that there are distinct phases. The Labour Party is no more irrelevant now than it was in 1983 or were the Conservatives in 2001.

    The journey back to power for an Opposition is multi-faceted - a part of it is down to the failings of the Government party whether down to an extreme external event such as the financial crash or down to indiscipline such as in the early 60s and mid 90s.

    By 1997 the Conservative Government had reached a point of political collapse even though the economy was going well. In 2010, by contrast, the economic reputation of the Labour Government was in tatters even though politically it still seemed cohesive.

    The other aspect is the re-invention of the Opposition as a credible alternative Government - the failings of the Government will help but as 1992 showed, no matter how poor the Government may be or seem, if the Opposition cannot convince the electorate it would be any better, it doesn't matter.

    Labour's previous journey back to Government began with the election of Neil Kinnock - the Conservative journey to 2010 began with the ousting of IDS in 2003. The process of re-invention and renewal doesn't end with the person who started it but it has to start. Smith and later Blair built on the modernisation begun by Kinnock and Mandelson. Howard begat Cameron whose lovebombing of the LDs in the autumn of 2005 proved so successful.

    Labour needs to begin the journey and that won't happen with Corbyn. It may not obviously be with his immediate successor but as with Kinnock and Howard, that person may be able to take more resistant elements with him/her because of their own track record.

    The, I suspect, post 2020 environment may be more favourable for a re-branding of Labour in Opposition and that combined with the inevitable problems, gaffes, indiscretions, blunders and just weariness with the same set of Conservative faces may enable Labour to be a potent challenger in 2025.

    I don't actually believe that the 2020 outcome is anything like as assured as you appear to imply.In late April 2002 Labour enjoyed a 23% lead in one poll - yet only managed to win the popular vote in May 2005 by 3%.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Not panicked at all.

    'May to offer Holyrood deal to defuse indyref call

    Theresa May will attempt to defuse the stand-off between Downing Street and Holyrood by offering Scotland new temporary powers that she hopes will weaken calls for a second independence referendum
    Mrs May is believed to have scheduled a meeting with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon for tomorrow (Monday) and is thought to be prepared to offer assurances on protecting the rights of EU nationals, among other measures, as the UK severs ties with the bloc.'

    http://tinyurl.com/mvubxqn

    I hope they mock up a nice scroll. It means nothing if it's not on a scroll.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Danny565 said:

    Is that a swing TO the CDU?!?

    Yes.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    Danny565 said:

    Is that a swing TO the CDU?!?

    Yes, by around 1% from SPD to CDU though both parties have substantially increased their vote from 2012.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    FF43 said:

    The question is less "which party?" than "which state?"

    Yes, when Jean-Claude Juncker observed that Cameron had destroyed the UK it wasn't a joke.
    ROFL

    amusing from the bloke who has actually presided over the break up of the EU
    Not break up, just the loss of one sulky member.
    Of course all our vote was a hissy fit.

    Totally unwarranted of course but the voters were having a strop.........

    I do so love our revisionist friends.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Sean_F said:

    looks like red red green

    Angies out

    More like CDU/SPD. This is a good result for CDU.
    Kramp-Karenbauer is a very strong candidate so not necessarily a bellwether for the national picture.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Sean_F said:

    looks like red red green

    Angies out

    More like CDU/SPD. This is a good result for CDU.
    what are her options ? She has held her vote but has few choices in partners. She cant go AfD or Linke, the FDP have flopped. She only has the SPD.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Something in the water in Europe?

    Mental health problems continue t ospread

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/783964/Afghan-national-cyclist-hammer-assault-crime-Germany-Hamburg
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    stodge said:

    <
    If they hadn't kept the pressure on - for instance, if Clarke had been their leader - Blair could have taken us into the euro without a referendum.

    Absolute nonsense.

    The main obstacle to Euro membership within the Government was Gordon Brown. He wasn't the only one less than convinced by the virtue of joining the Euro but he was firmly opposed and since Blair had effectively sub-contracted the running of the economy to Brown the Chancellor's opposition kept us out.

    The Conservatives had absolutely nothing to do with it.
    Revisionist history, I'm afraid.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211

    Sean_F said:

    looks like red red green

    Angies out

    More like CDU/SPD. This is a good result for CDU.
    what are her options ? She has held her vote but has few choices in partners. She cant go AfD or Linke, the FDP have flopped. She only has the SPD.
    But that must depend on the Greens being represented. If they fail, then a left-left combination would have no majority and would fall at the first hurdle.
  • Not panicked at all.

    'May to offer Holyrood deal to defuse indyref call

    Theresa May will attempt to defuse the stand-off between Downing Street and Holyrood by offering Scotland new temporary powers that she hopes will weaken calls for a second independence referendum
    Mrs May is believed to have scheduled a meeting with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon for tomorrow (Monday) and is thought to be prepared to offer assurances on protecting the rights of EU nationals, among other measures, as the UK severs ties with the bloc.'

    http://tinyurl.com/mvubxqn

    I hope they mock up a nice scroll. It means nothing if it's not on a scroll.

    It's not sealed until Gordon Brown bestrides the stage and says it's sealed.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    JohnO said:

    Sean_F said:

    looks like red red green

    Angies out

    More like CDU/SPD. This is a good result for CDU.
    what are her options ? She has held her vote but has few choices in partners. She cant go AfD or Linke, the FDP have flopped. She only has the SPD.
    But that must depend on the Greens being represented. If they fail, then a left-left combination would have no majority and would fall at the first hurdle.
    if that fails the only option is the grand coalition. Which once again forces Germany into a squishy middle
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    JohnO said:

    Sean_F said:

    looks like red red green

    Angies out

    More like CDU/SPD. This is a good result for CDU.
    what are her options ? She has held her vote but has few choices in partners. She cant go AfD or Linke, the FDP have flopped. She only has the SPD.
    But that must depend on the Greens being represented. If they fail, then a left-left combination would have no majority and would fall at the first hurdle.
    if that fails the only option is the grand coalition. Which once again forces Germany into a squishy middle
    A grand coalition is what they've got now in Saarland. The CDU has made big gains and the SPD, Linke and Greens have all lost share. Your predilection for giving the losers the victory is a revelation.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    JohnO said:

    Sean_F said:

    looks like red red green

    Angies out

    More like CDU/SPD. This is a good result for CDU.
    what are her options ? She has held her vote but has few choices in partners. She cant go AfD or Linke, the FDP have flopped. She only has the SPD.
    But that must depend on the Greens being represented. If they fail, then a left-left combination would have no majority and would fall at the first hurdle.
    if that fails the only option is the grand coalition. Which once again forces Germany into a squishy middle
    A grand coalition is what they've got now in Saarland. The CDU has made big gains and the SPD, Linke and Greens have all lost share. Your predilection for giving the losers the victory is a revelation.
    Who are the losers ?

    the CDU if this continues can only ever govern with the cooperation of their main opponents

    Merkel has messed up creating a coalition with the smaller parties, the FDP in particular
This discussion has been closed.