The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Anecdotes from Richmond Park (Just back from leafleting and canvassing for Sarah Olney).
Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.
However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.
Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none. A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah." A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time." Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him. In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable. Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it. Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker. Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).
So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.
Never trust a candidate's prediction. They are not capable of properly judging the situation. It's a combination of being too close and too emotionally invested. When I stood, I was convinced of victory until 6pm on election day, when canvass returns started to turn against us, but I didn't truly give up hope until the Returning Officer began to speak. I lost by 7,000 votes.
And there were only 7,051 votes cast ....
The cheek of it. Respect for your age means I will refrain from pointing out with strong language that democracy depends on suckers like me and NPXMP.
He would have won had Harman not forced him and Cooper to abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals. That was what gave Corbyn the momentum to win the contest.
It was a quite mentalist decision by Harman. A move that had no political benefit for Labour.
They were running for Leader, they could have refused, since if they won the contest they#d be setting up their own shadow cabinets anyway.
Abstaining was a weird choice though. What was the reasoning? To try to show economic credibility or something? Strange to see how not opposing a measure but not supporting it would do that.
This is an election like no other. The weightings and adjustments that the pollsters are using were derived in a very different regime of parameter space.
The polls are probably little better than guesswork.
If that is so, we should all be lumping on Labour, or maybe even LDs, UKIP, and Any Other.
My suspicion is that the market may be underestimating Labour.
The fact that Will Hill offered that ridiculous 5% return on Labour coming second in popular vote, plus anecdotes of everyone betting on a Tory landslide suggests that there can't be much value left on Tories doing well. I feel confident Tories will get a lot more votes than last time but really don't know how that translates into seats.
Value bet of the election for me so far was on Lib Dems under 38 seats which I got at 1.8 if I recall. Thanks to those who tipped that.
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
It matters little if he is competent or not. We could put Muffin The Mule up as chief negotiator and it wouldn't make much difference. We will get the deal the EU wants us to have. Best we can hope for is that they are motivated by enlightened self-interest. Vengeance would be worst case, and stupid of course. It's pretty much up to them though.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
You are confusing me with somebody else (Peter from Putney?)
Labour's score has gone up by 7 percentage points, though. That just does not chime with reality. I mentioned it before, one poll had Labour's raw figures on 23%, which was dramatically increased by weighting. I just don't buy it.
The polls are broken.
This is an election like no other. The weightings and adjustments that the pollsters are using were derived in a very different regime of parameter space.
The polls are probably little better than guesswork.
If that is so, we should all be lumping on Labour, or maybe even LDs, UKIP, and Any Other.
I've been hinting as much myself, Twin Tower, over the past 48 hours, well at least as far as Labour possible upside is concerned, not so sure about the other parties. Unlike Yours Truly, Nick Palmer has probably wisely been cautioning against placing spread bets for now ..... the danger is of course that if one delays too long, one misses the boat, the value and therefore the profit ...... of course one might also dodge the losses! This IS high risk betting and great care is required. DYOR.
Yes, I noticed that my fellow Twin Tower, and it tempted me to put my toe in the water on a (very) small spread bet - a buy of Labour seats at 160.
Like you I find this election very difficult to call and my best guess has swung from a modest Tory win to a Tory landslide, and back again. At present I'm in 'back again' mode but I can't be risking large stakes with so many imponderables.
I would think a punter like yourself who can sniff out the value and best prices which others pass over will do well, especially given your skill at hedging and occasionally arbing. Anyway I'm adopting a pretty cautious approach, and suspect you are doing likewise.
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
Yet, no deal would also be crippling for them. Maybe not proportionately as bad, but bad nonetheless.
We want: * A quick deal on citizens * A comprehensive FTA * No truck with the ECJ
They want: * A deal on citizens * As much cash as possible
Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
'Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.'
Me too, but if twitter says the opposite it must be true......
Anecdotes from Richmond Park (Just back from leafleting and canvassing for Sarah Olney).
Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.
However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.
Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none. A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah." A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time." Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him. In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable. Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it. Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker. Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).
So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.
Good to hear. The Tories need Zac back like they need a hole in the head...
Anecdotes from Richmond Park (Just back from leafleting and canvassing for Sarah Olney).
Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.
However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.
Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none. A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah." A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time." Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him. In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable. Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it. Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker. Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).
So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.
What Zac needed to do was run for Carshalton, much better fit to the constituency.
Richmond is very hard to call. On all the models it heads Tory but Olney has extremely recent incumbency. One to back both horses at longer than evens as yourself and many other PBers are/have doing.
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
Yet, no deal would also be crippling for them. Maybe not proportionately as bad, but bad nonetheless.
We want: * A quick deal on citizens * A comprehensive FTA * No truck with the ECJ
They want: * A deal on citizens * As much cash as possible
Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
I don't understand the basis for your rules of Brexit Poker. Sure, the UK's red lines will be face up on the table, but so are the EU's already.
I sincerely doubt ALL the cards will be face up on the table for either side, nor that either side will give away precisely how important each of its negotiating positions really is. I also fully expect both sides to create any number of canards both to complicate the negotiations, and to create chips with which to barter.
SW London does look like being a rare good spot for the LibDems, where there might be a big pool of Tory Remainers who really do feel strongly about it. Personally I suspect Richmond will be a step too far this time, but Twickenham and Kingston still look like good prospects for gains (possibly their only ones in England & Wales).
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
It matters little if he is competent or not. We could put Muffin The Mule up as chief negotiator and it wouldn't make much difference. We will get the deal the EU wants us to have. Best we can hope for is that they are motivated by enlightened self-interest. Vengeance would be worst case, and stupid of course. It's pretty much up to them though.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
You are confusing me with somebody else (Peter from Putney?)
Apologies.
No apologies necessary! It's a confusion we enjoy and encourage.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
Remember, whoever is playing the EU must also have another person playing "the CEO of BMW" who whispers into their ear before any card can be played...
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
Remember, whoever is playing the EU must also have another person playing "the CEO of BMW" who whispers into their ear before any card can be played...
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
Uh, mine was a very cold and calculated bet, relying on Williamglenn's emotional over-investment. The odds were and are heavily stacked in my favour - i.e. that Brexit will happen - but I figured william was such an obessive, neurotic Remoaner he'd take my ludicrous £10,000 wager, anyway.
And so he did.
The following day I got a kind of swindler's remorse: I felt rather uncomfortable in the way I had exploited his irrationality. So I offered, and he agreed, to reduce the bet to £1000. Enough to sting, but not absurdly hurtful.
Just sayin', for the record.
I(s someone already holding the money for you both?
Everything about him screams Untrustworthy and guaranteed to just disappear.
Anecdotes from Richmond Park (Just back from leafleting and canvassing for Sarah Olney).
Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.
However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.
Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none. A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah." A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time." Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him. In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable. Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it. Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker. Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).
So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.
What Zac needed to do was run for Carshalton, much better fit to the constituency.
Richmond is very hard to call. On all the models it heads Tory but Olney has extremely recent incumbency. One to back both horses at longer than evens as yourself and many other PBers are/have doing.
A few of us were able to back the LibDems at 25/1 to hold Richmond Park when someone [modesty forbids] pointed out this outstanding value bet from Betfair Sports .... needless to say it didn't last long.
Mr. M, it's the short time scale. It's not even been an SNP generation since the last time the people of Richmond Park were asked to vote for Goldsmith or Olney.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
Remember, whoever is playing the EU must also have another person playing "the CEO of BMW" who whispers into their ear before any card can be played...
Yes, and bids in German, of course.
Why not in English - the language of 22 of the 26 Eurovision entries?
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
Yet, no deal would also be crippling for them. Maybe not proportionately as bad, but bad nonetheless.
We want: * A quick deal on citizens * A comprehensive FTA * No truck with the ECJ
They want: * A deal on citizens * As much cash as possible
Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
I don't understand the basis for your rules of Brexit Poker. Sure, the UK's red lines will be face up on the table, but so are the EU's already.
I sincerely doubt ALL the cards will be face up on the table for either side, nor that either side will give away precisely how important each of its negotiating positions really is. I also fully expect both sides to create any number of canards both to complicate the negotiations, and to create chips with which to barter.
Tim, the problem with our position is its inflexibility. We have to leave the EU come what may. They are under no similar constraint and can be as flexible or otherwise as they see fit. Moreover, we have no way of knowing what their 'walk away' position is or just how flexible they might be. We just have to test it out, as any poker player would.
Mr. M, it's the short time scale. It's not even been an SNP generation since the last time the people of Richmond Park were asked to vote for Goldsmith or Olney.
That sounds more like an argument for the GE to pass that constituency by.
After all, they voted recently and so we already know what they think!
That's almost as ridiculous as believing Caesar to be a superior general to Hannibal.
Mr. M, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's barely been five minutes since the last vote, when they got rid of Goldsmith, so putting him up as the candidate again is unwise.
Mr. Punter, are you a federalist? If so, we disagree, but fair enough. But if not, then we have to leave the EU, and the sooner (and therefore less integrated) the better.
Mr. Putney, an excellent tip of yours, I only wish I'd put more on (and that Wokingham bet hadn't been voided).
Never trust a candidate's prediction. They are not capable of properly judging the situation. It's a combination of being too close and too emotionally invested. When I stood, I was convinced of victory until 6pm on election day, when canvass returns started to turn against us, but I didn't truly give up hope until the Returning Officer began to speak. I lost by 7,000 votes.
And there were only 7,051 votes cast ....
The cheek of it. Respect for your age means I will refrain from pointing out with strong language that democracy depends on suckers like me and NPXMP.
The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.
Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?
To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.
Uh, mine was a very cold and calculated bet, relying on Williamglenn's emotional over-investment. The odds were and are heavily stacked in my favour - i.e. that Brexit will happen - but I figured william was such an obessive, neurotic Remoaner he'd take my ludicrous £10,000 wager, anyway.
And so he did.
The following day I got a kind of swindler's remorse: I felt rather uncomfortable in the way I had exploited his irrationality. So I offered, and he agreed, to reduce the bet to £1000. Enough to sting, but not absurdly hurtful.
Just sayin', for the record.
I(s someone already holding the money for you both?
Everything about him screams Untrustworthy and guaranteed to just disappear.
No-one is holding the cash, but in our correspondence I learned enough about him to believe he is good for the money and will not welch (should he lose). He may be a nutter about Brexit, but he appears to be sane, smart and solvent, otherwise.
Then I doff my cap to a sensible investigation on your part.
Those of us on the public forum have only seen the nutter side of him, hence my concern.
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
Anecdotes from Richmond Park (Just back from leafleting and canvassing for Sarah Olney).
Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.
However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.
Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none. A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah." A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time." Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him. In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable. Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it. Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker. Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).
So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.
Good to hear. The Tories need Zac back like they need a hole in the head...
A hole in the head is pretty indispensable else where would you shove your cornflakes
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
Bloody idiots. All I forecast if they persist in this nonsensical idea of a split/realignment/takeover/merger under the FPTP system is 1983-style oblivion. Compared to 1979, Thatcher got significantly fewer votes and about 100 more seats in 1983. Without the SDP splitting off, Thatcher could possibly have had a majority of 10-20 or so and if so might have been held in check by the Opposition and the Lords.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
That would be marvelous - 550 seats for the Tories.
Mr. M, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's barely been five minutes since the last vote, when they got rid of Goldsmith, so putting him up as the candidate again is unwise.
Mr. Punter, are you a federalist? If so, we disagree, but fair enough. But if not, then we have to leave the EU, and the sooner (and therefore less integrated) the better.
Mr. Putney, an excellent tip of yours, I only wish I'd put more on (and that Wokingham bet hadn't been voided).
MD - Am I a Federalist?
Short answer is yes.
Long answer is that you have to take it slowly and build up to it with like-minded and similar nations, and be prepared at any time to call a halt should you run into insuperable difficulties and not be able to carry your populations with you. It follows therefore that I was deeply unhappy with the extension of the EU to 28 countries, many of whom had little in common. I'd have thought that maybe a dozen or so could have made it into a coherent political as well as economic Union. For a start, the control of borders would have been managable, but how do you do that under Schengen?
It further follows from this that my list of culprits for the fiasco that is Brexit begins with the EU itself firmly at the top. It does not however follow that I think tearing up fourty years of negotiated agreements for a blank sheet of paper was a terribly sensible idea, whether you like the idea of federalism or not.
Anyway, you asked, and I've answered. Hope that's enough for now.
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
That would be marvelous - 550 seats for the Tories.
There is even a button on Baxter to simulate a new progressive party!
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
FDP, (Free Democrats party) up 3.6% to 12% good news.
The FDP are not a Libertarian Party, But they are pro personal freedom and pro economic freedom so they are probably the party a German Libertarian would vote for. (Similar to D66 in the Netherlands or the ACT in New Zeeland)
So if the rise of 3.6% is typical, (and no reason to think it is) then there is a good chance that they will brake the 5%, needed limit to get back in the national parliament.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
The guy keeps on giving,this man brought us brexit,inwhich I thank him.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
It would be a good swap with Hammond. We need spreadsheet Phil with his eye for detail on the case, not amateur bluffers like Boris and Davis.
Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.
It matters little if he is competent or not. We could put Muffin The Mule up as chief negotiator and it wouldn't make much difference. We will get the deal the EU wants us to have. Best we can hope for is that they are motivated by enlightened self-interest. Vengeance would be worst case, and stupid of course. It's pretty much up to them though.
Our own room for manoeuvre is negligible, whoever does the dealmaking for us.
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
The truth is that, for all its recent success, and despite the large proportion of seats it will retain at the forthcoming general election, the SNP is in trouble. I accept that on the face of it this sounds ridiculous, given the party’s impressive performance at the 2015 general election, the 2016 devolved election, and the recent local election. But coming first in elections is not what the SNP is for, or what it really cares about. Neither is the opportunity to govern, the aim of its rivals. These can only ever be a means to a very specific end – the end of the United Kingdom. And there are growing signs that this greater goal is slipping away.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
Yet, no deal would also be crippling for them. Maybe not proportionately as bad, but bad nonetheless.
We want: * A quick deal on citizens * A comprehensive FTA * No truck with the ECJ
They want: * A deal on citizens * As much cash as possible
Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.
Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.
The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.
Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.
I do hope they bring plenty of money.
I don't understand the basis for your rules of Brexit Poker. Sure, the UK's red lines will be face up on the table, but so are the EU's already.
I sincerely doubt ALL the cards will be face up on the table for either side, nor that either side will give away precisely how important each of its negotiating positions really is. I also fully expect both sides to create any number of canards both to complicate the negotiations, and to create chips with which to barter.
Tim, the problem with our position is its inflexibility. We have to leave the EU come what may. They are under no similar constraint and can be as flexible or otherwise as they see fit. Moreover, we have no way of knowing what their 'walk away' position is or just how flexible they might be. We just have to test it out, as any poker player would.
They know exactly where we stand.
Peter....I wouldn't try too hard to get into nuanced debate with some of the ideologues here. You'd fare better discussing the merits of gay marriage with ISIS.
FWIW....I completely agree with you about the EU. The deal we get is entirely up to them and has absolutely sweet FA to do with the size of May's majority.....
Well, that's it. Lost some wedge, but so what. I saw my first game at WHL in 1972 with my Dad. He left us in 2005 and I can't stop thinking of him all of a sudden. I'm in pieces. My Spurs.
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
I agree with you that with a FPTP political system, we are incline to get a 2 and 1/2 party system, similar to the US and to a degree Aus.
But how those party's arange is another question, we could move to a Canadian arrangement, where their is a Tory Party, and a Liberal party, and a much smaller socialist party called the NDP (New Democracy Party) that is supported by the trade unions.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
The AV referendum didn't require that, although it could have been reversed by a new act of parliament.
Mr. Surbiton, for changing the electoral system I absolutely think a referendum is required.
Suppose there's a weak opposition and the only other show in town proposes a system that benefits them massively. That'd be horrendous. The electorate would face a choice between drunken idiots, or someone vaguely competent but intent upon gerrymandering the electoral system.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
Well of course technically they don't need it to be in their manifesto either, although that would be a bit sneaky.
'On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return.'
The one thing the EU & most of the other countries are desperate for is money. If we leave without a deal whose going to volunteer to pay the £ 13 billion annual shortfall?
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
Ah so winning 35% of the vote in your view gives politiicians the right to do what the fuck they want. This is our democracy not theirs and if they think that they need a good dose of piano wire. Any constitutional change such as the voting system should require a majority of us to agree
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
The AV referendum didn't require that, although it could have been reversed by a new act of parliament.
Wasn't that because that Act was better written to specify the result would be implemented in law? And in so doing, rather undermined the government's case in the A50 case that parliament would not be required to vote again as by having a referendum they had indicated they were delegating back to the people?
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
Well, that's it. Lost some wedge, but so what. I saw my first game at WHL in 1972 with my Dad. He left us in 2005 and I can't stop thinking of him all of a sudden. I'm in pieces. My Spurs.
On the bright side, the stadium is not leaving Tottenham - link worth a look see.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
The AV referendum didn't require that, although it could have been reversed by a new act of parliament.
Wasn't that because that Act was better written to specify the result would be implemented in law? And in so doing, rather undermined the government's case in the A50 case that parliament would not be required to vote again as by having a referendum they had indicated they were delegating back to the people?
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
Well of course technically they don't need it to be in their manifesto either, although that would be a bit sneaky.
It has to be in the manifesto to keep the unelected HoL on side. As you know we have lots of vested interests. Safe MPs, Lords etc. who wants to keep the status quo.
Let me get this right. Everyone (and even you) knows that the SNP will win this election in Scotland on seats and votes (making it six in a row national multi party polls since 2010). The Tories are taking this country towards a Brexit cliff edge with the economy starting to tank, it seems likely that Labour's internal agonies and stalemate will continue into the forseeable future, the Liberals are trading water at a very low level and UKIP has effectively shut up shop.
And you think the SNP are in trouble!!!!!! Get a life and get a grip.
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
You are confusing me with somebody else (Peter from Putney?)
Apologies.
Actually it seems I was right. You posted this in response to me on 1st May.
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
I was starting from Peter the Punter's position that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave. I don't think that is our minimum acceptable outcome and it certainly isn't our ideal outcome. We will have to give up some things in negotiations in return for concessions from the EU. Neither side will get everything they want.
If the EU wanted nothing from us our position would be very weak. However, it is clear from their initial demands that they do want something from us. That therefore gives us something to bargain with.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
Well of course technically they don't need it to be in their manifesto either, although that would be a bit sneaky.
It has to be in the manifesto to keep the unelected HoL on side. As you know we have lots of vested interests. Safe MPs, Lords etc. who wants to keep the status quo.
Let me get this right. Everyone (and even you) knows that the SNP will win this election in Scotland on seats and votes (making it six in a row national multi party polls since 2010). The Tories are taking this country towards a Brexit cliff edge with the economy starting to tank, it seems likely that Labour's internal agonies and stalemate will continue into the forseeable future, the Liberals are trading water at a very low level and UKIP has effectively shut up shop.
And you think the SNP are in trouble!!!!!! Get a life and get a grip.
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
Well of course technically they don't need it to be in their manifesto either, although that would be a bit sneaky.
It has to be in the manifesto to keep the unelected HoL on side. As you know we have lots of vested interests. Safe MPs, Lords etc. who wants to keep the status quo.
Of course its only a convention isn't it that the Lords don't oppose things in manifestos. Given the right issue, and suicidal enough tendencies, they could resist even then. But we're only talking hypotheticals.
Let me get this right. Everyone (and even you) knows that the SNP will win this election in Scotland on seats and votes (making it six in a row national multi party polls since 2010). The Tories are taking this country towards a Brexit cliff edge with the economy starting to tank, it seems likely that Labour's internal agonies and stalemate will continue into the forseeable future, the Liberals are trading water at a very low level and UKIP has effectively shut up shop.
And you think the SNP are in trouble!!!!!! Get a life and get a grip.
Well, there are different degrees of trouble - theirs is certainly a better position that most.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
The woman who destroyed Europe, the greatest political blunder in post war European politics, the worst German chancellor of all time & other such measured judgments - another dive down the rabbithole of amnesia for them.
They're all on tenterhooks to see if Macron can make a go of it, then it'll be 'he's pretty centre right really', 'never liked that Le Pen' and so on.
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
There can be two opinions on that. The SDP had very few defectors, hence, Labour stayed as the official opposition with all the television time etc.
If the new group becomes the "official" opposition, then it could be a different story.
Are you more or less likely to announce IndyRef2, sorry, ScotRef, on the morning of June 9th than before your atrocious record at actually governing was "ruthlessly" exposed during the campaign?
@ScottyNational: News: ''Scottish Education is performing well, apart from literacy and numeracy" says Sturgeon, " for example, flag painting is up 300%... "
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
They will still get 8% or so and around 10 MPs which is better than nothing and added to a 'progressive' voteshare could take the new party ahead of Corbynite Labour
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
She will win a clear mandate as May will then the hard work begins
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
FDP, (Free Democrats party) up 3.6% to 12% good news.
The FDP are not a Libertarian Party, But they are pro personal freedom and pro economic freedom so they are probably the party a German Libertarian would vote for. (Similar to D66 in the Netherlands or the ACT in New Zeeland)
So if the rise of 3.6% is typical, (and no reason to think it is) then there is a good chance that they will brake the 5%, needed limit to get back in the national parliament.
They are basically a libertarian party, yes, they are recovering if not quite at the levels of 2009
Sandy, I don't know if you heard the R4 programme on this subject a few weeks back, but it seems the guy is definitely coming back into politics. He will definitely not be standing for Parliament however. He knows that wouldn't be feasible.
The problem is that under our first past the post system, there is room for only 2 1/2 parties. If the centre party were to become 1, the Labour will become the half.
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
PR would have to goto referendum and people would no more vote for it than they would av, simple reason is you vote and you dont know what you have voted for until the politicians meet in dark smoky rooms and decide a coalition with what is in or out. I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
There is no constitutional requirement for this referendum nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. Even if something is passed in a referendum, it still has to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament.
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
Well of course technically they don't need it to be in their manifesto either, although that would be a bit sneaky.
It has to be in the manifesto to keep the unelected HoL on side. As you know we have lots of vested interests. Safe MPs, Lords etc. who wants to keep the status quo.
And lots of the public, apparently
Strange country. Claims to be democratic and half the parliament is appointed, which in important matters actually cannot do anything.
Look at the US. Trump's excesses can be stopped by Congress.
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
That would be marvelous - 550 seats for the Tories.
I doubt it would be that many, the Tories would still be down 5% on the main poll due to losses to the progressives, in a decade or so there is no reason once May departs and if the 'progressives' get a charismatic, electable leader they could not do a Macron and En Marche and win but they would need to overtake Labour first
On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return. If they don't, we have no reason to agree. We get our minimum acceptable outcome anyway. There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
You are confusing me with somebody else (Peter from Putney?)
Apologies.
Actually it seems I was right. You posted this in response to me on 1st May.
There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?
Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us
I was starting from Peter the Punter's position that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave. I don't think that is our minimum acceptable outcome and it certainly isn't our ideal outcome. We will have to give up some things in negotiations in return for concessions from the EU. Neither side will get everything they want.
If the EU wanted nothing from us our position would be very weak. However, it is clear from their initial demands that they do want something from us. That therefore gives us something to bargain with.
Seems it's my turn to apologise! May 1st seems an eternity ago. I'm sorry.
But I do stand by what I said, and I do think our negotiating position is exceptionally weak.
It would be infinitely stronger if the other side did not know for sure that we have to leave no matter what. In a normal negotiating situation, the other side knows you might walk if the terms are not acceptable, but the uncertainty lends you a certain leverage. That's the sense in which I say it is like playing poker with your cards up on the table.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologues, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
The woman who destroyed Europe, the greatest political blunder in post war European politics, the worst German chancellor of all time & other such measured judgments - another dive down the rabbithole of amnesia for them.
They're all on tenterhooks to see if Macron can make a go of it, then it'll be 'he's pretty centre right really', 'never liked that Le Pen' and so on.
Her decision to chaotically and unilaterally invite 1m or more refugees was a grotesque error of epochal proportions, and quite possibly nudged Brexit over the line to LEAVE. So even in terms of basic EU politics she has been a disaster.
As for the long term effects on Germany, from this influx of 1m almost-unemployable young Muslim men it is, to be polite, quite hard to be optimistic.
Nonetheless German voters seem to like her, and she does have a certain gravitas, and from a Brexit British perspective she's definitely a better bet than Schulz. C'est tout.
She's made some big errors, but as a political survivor she seems barely under threat after 12 years in the top job, which has to be respected.
Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
FDP, (Free Democrats party) up 3.6% to 12% good news.
The FDP are not a Libertarian Party, But they are pro personal freedom and pro economic freedom so they are probably the party a German Libertarian would vote for. (Similar to D66 in the Netherlands or the ACT in New Zeeland)
So if the rise of 3.6% is typical, (and no reason to think it is) then there is a good chance that they will brake the 5%, needed limit to get back in the national parliament.
Yes, the rise is indeed typical and they should get back in:
That said, I think of them mainly a party of business, more interested in free markets than in personal liberty, unlike, say, D66. I don't mean they're authoritarians, but they're not especially big on liberalism in general. The perceived need for the party arises because the Christian Democrats, although centre-right, are a classic interventionist party, like pre-Thatcher Conservatives.
Surbiton is right to point out that the wilder fringes of PB were predicting a big AfD (=UKIP) breakthrough after Merkel's handlg of the migration crisis. In reality the AfD appears largely deflated these days, partly because of party splits and a perception of right-wing extremism (which is electoral poison in Germany for familiar reasons) but also because Merkel is perceived to have weathered the migrant issue reasonably well. Despite occasional incidents, the new arrivals seem to have settled down and are gradually being absorbed.
The CDU wins another (big) state election, taking North Rhine Westphalia from the SPD-Greens, both of whom are down. AfD well down on earlier prediction but do make it int the state Parliament, as probably do the Left Party, who have doubled their score.
Latest CDU on 34% SPD 31% FDP 12% AfD 8% Grune 6% and Die Linke 5% so the rightwing parties combined (CDU+FDP+AfD_) have 54% in Germany's largest state
I remember PB Tories here crowing in 2015 that Merkel will be gone.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
The woman who destroyed Europe, the greatest political blunder in post war European politics, the worst German chancellor of all time & other such measured judgments - another dive down the rabbithole of amnesia for them.
They're all on tenterhooks to see if Macron can make a go of it, then it'll be 'he's pretty centre right really', 'never liked that Le Pen' and so on.
Her decision to chaotically and unilaterally invite 1m or more refugees was a grotesque error of epochal proportions, and quite possibly nudged Brexit over the line to LEAVE. So even in terms of basic EU politics she has been a disaster.
As for the long term effects on Germany, from this influx of 1m almost-unemployable young Muslim men it is, to be polite, quite hard to be optimistic.
Nonetheless German voters seem to like her, and she does have a certain gravitas, and from a Brexit British perspective she's definitely a better bet than Schulz. C'est tout.
Germany's economy grew faster than both the UK and the USA in the first quarter of this year too
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !
Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.
The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.
It depends how many defections there were.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.
Comments
Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.
However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.
Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none.
A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah."
A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time."
Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him.
In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable.
Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it.
Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker.
Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).
So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.
Respect for your age means I will refrain from pointing out with strong language that democracy depends on suckers like me and NPXMP.
Abstaining was a weird choice though. What was the reasoning? To try to show economic credibility or something? Strange to see how not opposing a measure but not supporting it would do that.
The fact that Will Hill offered that ridiculous 5% return on Labour coming second in popular vote, plus anecdotes of everyone betting on a Tory landslide suggests that there can't be much value left on Tories doing well. I feel confident Tories will get a lot more votes than last time but really don't know how that translates into seats.
Value bet of the election for me so far was on Lib Dems under 38 seats which I got at 1.8 if I recall.
Thanks to those who tipped that.
"Austria could see election 'in autumn' after coalition ends"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39915543
foxinsoxuk
Fallon was rather poor, but rather more worrying was DD on Peston. He seems woefully underprepared for negotiations. Another one who will be out in the reshuffle?
'Interesting that competence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I thought DD was persuasive about understanding where the pinch points of the negotiation were and what his red lines were likely to be.'
Me too, but if twitter says the opposite it must be true......
Mr. Barnesian, having Goldsmith as candidate may slightly smack of asking the electorate if they'd like to vote again as they got it wrong last time.
Richmond is very hard to call. On all the models it heads Tory but Olney has extremely recent incumbency. One to back both horses at longer than evens as yourself and many other PBers are/have doing.
I sincerely doubt ALL the cards will be face up on the table for either side, nor that either side will give away precisely how important each of its negotiating positions really is. I also fully expect both sides to create any number of canards both to complicate the negotiations, and to create chips with which to barter.
SW London does look like being a rare good spot for the LibDems, where there might be a big pool of Tory Remainers who really do feel strongly about it. Personally I suspect Richmond will be a step too far this time, but Twickenham and Kingston still look like good prospects for gains (possibly their only ones in England & Wales).
Remember, whoever is playing the EU must also have another person playing "the CEO of BMW" who whispers into their ear before any card can be played...
What eye for detail
Like the NI detail
Plus that's happening more this time as the election was unexpected and long term recruitment has been curtailed.
Everything about him screams Untrustworthy and guaranteed to just disappear.
They know exactly where we stand.
After all, they voted recently and so we already know what they think!
That's almost as ridiculous as believing Caesar to be a superior general to Hannibal.
Mr. Punter, are you a federalist? If so, we disagree, but fair enough. But if not, then we have to leave the EU, and the sooner (and therefore less integrated) the better.
Mr. Putney, an excellent tip of yours, I only wish I'd put more on (and that Wokingham bet hadn't been voided).
Those of us on the public forum have only seen the nutter side of him, hence my concern.
"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."
(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)
C'mon Ireland.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5
In other words, the Tories will always win.
Blair's second crime: Not to have introduced PR.
Short answer is yes.
Long answer is that you have to take it slowly and build up to it with like-minded and similar nations, and be prepared at any time to call a halt should you run into insuperable difficulties and not be able to carry your populations with you. It follows therefore that I was deeply unhappy with the extension of the EU to 28 countries, many of whom had little in common. I'd have thought that maybe a dozen or so could have made it into a coherent political as well as economic Union. For a start, the control of borders would have been managable, but how do you do that under Schengen?
It further follows from this that my list of culprits for the fiasco that is Brexit begins with the EU itself firmly at the top. It does not however follow that I think tearing up fourty years of negotiated agreements for a blank sheet of paper was a terribly sensible idea, whether you like the idea of federalism or not.
Anyway, you asked, and I've answered. Hope that's enough for now.
The FDP are not a Libertarian Party, But they are pro personal freedom and pro economic freedom so they are probably the party a German Libertarian would vote for. (Similar to D66 in the Netherlands or the ACT in New Zeeland)
So if the rise of 3.6% is typical, (and no reason to think it is) then there is a good chance that they will brake the 5%, needed limit to get back in the national parliament.
Brave woman. Europe's greatest statesperson since Brandt.
I voted conservative in 2010. Would I have voted for the coalition manifesto no I wouldn't my vote was suborned by arsehole politicians to claim a mandate they didnt have
'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'
If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?
Anyway, we disagree on the fundamental point of federalism, but I do appreciate your honesty.
Simi Singh walks in to bat.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2017/05/why-wont-nicola-sturgeon-get-her-girl-job-running-scotland
FWIW....I completely agree with you about the EU. The deal we get is entirely up to them and has absolutely sweet FA to do with the size of May's majority.....
If a party has PR in its manifesto and wins the election , as Blair did, of course, PR can be introduced.
But how those party's arange is another question, we could move to a Canadian arrangement, where their is a Tory Party, and a Liberal party, and a much smaller socialist party called the NDP (New Democracy Party) that is supported by the trade unions.
Suppose there's a weak opposition and the only other show in town proposes a system that benefits them massively. That'd be horrendous. The electorate would face a choice between drunken idiots, or someone vaguely competent but intent upon gerrymandering the electoral system.
Mr. Putney, one hopes they get a better name.
Mr. Pagan, quite. PR is the work of Satan.
'On a previous thread you suggested in response to one of my posts that our minimum acceptable outcome is that we leave the EU without a deal and that this put us in a very weak negotiating position. On the contrary, if that were true (and I don't think it is) it would put us in an incredibly strong position. It means that if the EU want anything from us (a divorce payment, for example) they have to give us something in return.'
The one thing the EU & most of the other countries are desperate for is money.
If we leave without a deal whose going to volunteer to pay the £ 13 billion annual shortfall?
https://www.theguardian.com/football/gallery/2016/dec/21/tottenham-hotspur-new-stadium-changing-face-white-hart-lane-in-pictures
Let me get this right. Everyone (and even you) knows that the SNP will win this election in Scotland on seats and votes (making it six in a row national multi party polls since 2010). The Tories are taking this country towards a Brexit cliff edge with the economy starting to tank, it seems likely that Labour's internal agonies and stalemate will continue into the forseeable future, the Liberals are trading water at a very low level and UKIP has effectively shut up shop.
And you think the SNP are in trouble!!!!!! Get a life and get a grip.
If the EU wanted nothing from us our position would be very weak. However, it is clear from their initial demands that they do want something from us. That therefore gives us something to bargain with.
They're all on tenterhooks to see if Macron can make a go of it, then it'll be 'he's pretty centre right really', 'never liked that Le Pen' and so on.
If the new group becomes the "official" opposition, then it could be a different story.
Are you more or less likely to announce IndyRef2, sorry, ScotRef, on the morning of June 9th than before your atrocious record at actually governing was "ruthlessly" exposed during the campaign?
@ScottyNational: News: ''Scottish Education is performing well, apart from literacy and numeracy" says Sturgeon, " for example, flag painting is up 300%... "
As you say, get a grip.
Doesn't look much like a "win" from here
Look at the US. Trump's excesses can be stopped by Congress.
But I do stand by what I said, and I do think our negotiating position is exceptionally weak.
It would be infinitely stronger if the other side did not know for sure that we have to leave no matter what. In a normal negotiating situation, the other side knows you might walk if the terms are not acceptable, but the uncertainty lends you a certain leverage. That's the sense in which I say it is like playing poker with your cards up on the table.
That sense is common sense, surely?
Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....
Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
That said, I think of them mainly a party of business, more interested in free markets than in personal liberty, unlike, say, D66. I don't mean they're authoritarians, but they're not especially big on liberalism in general. The perceived need for the party arises because the Christian Democrats, although centre-right, are a classic interventionist party, like pre-Thatcher Conservatives.
Surbiton is right to point out that the wilder fringes of PB were predicting a big AfD (=UKIP) breakthrough after Merkel's handlg of the migration crisis. In reality the AfD appears largely deflated these days, partly because of party splits and a perception of right-wing extremism (which is electoral poison in Germany for familiar reasons) but also because Merkel is perceived to have weathered the migrant issue reasonably well. Despite occasional incidents, the new arrivals seem to have settled down and are gradually being absorbed.
But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.