Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
There's more to it than that I think. They don't recognise Westminster's jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
If that involves some sacrifice in my wallet so I can look myself in the mirror comfortably in 15 years time so be it. I do not wish that of course, and actually I don't think that will be the case, but I sure as hell am not going to be persuaded by a graph of the last 4 quarters stats on anything.
That's a reasonable position.
I think the more significant thing about the current economic data is the success of the Eurozone. The rhetoric about it being a burning building and that we were shackled to a corpse is being shown to be entirely hollow.
Thank you.
These things a cyclical, and doubtless the "uncertainty" in and of itself is a drag on us for a bit. Germany is certainly not going to turn from a BMW into a Trabant, and nor should we wish that.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
I don't think an ardent Remainer will be winning votes from Labour, no. But an ardent Leaver will lose a lot of votes to Labour, and even under May this will happen IMO to a pretty significant degree in London this year. The UKIP vote was concentrated mostly in boroughs which the Tories already hold, so it will bolster them in Bromley, Bexley and Havering. Croydon is an exception nevertheless the Tories have no chance of winning that back.
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Not unless they can find a way to take their seats without pledging to serve the Queen.
That's what I think. There is the case of Charles Bradlaugh who tried to take a different oath to the one available at the time (a non-religious one iirc) in 1880s. Thrown out 4 or 5 times and kept getting re-elected.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
There's more to it than that I think. They don't recognise Westminster's jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
Yet they take their seats (and a place in the executive) at Stormont.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
They will in London but not sure elsewhere. Indeed I expect the Lib Dems to do well as they are traditionally good at local level. I expect UKIP to disappear
Worth reminding ourselves of the 2014 baseline (note - these elections coincided with the 2014 Euroelections, and were themselves coming off elections that coincided with the 2010 general election (give or take reorganisations and one-off all-out elections following boundary reviews etc).
The Lib Dems might poll better than a NEV of 13% but if they do, it won't be by much and it's not impossible that they won't do so at all. Even if they do, both Con and Lab will be up on their 2014 shares so the extent to which the Lib Dems can make gains will depend on their ability to target SW London and other areas of promise.
For Con and Lab, the scope to make big net gains looks pretty limited unless one or other can shift the national polls in their advantage. I agree with Big_G that Labour ought to make decent gains in London but these may well be offset to a good degree elsewhere in the country.
It is entirely possible Labour makes no net gains in council at all in May, albeit net gains in councillors, given apart from Barnet (which has a strong Jewish anti Corbyn vote) they need at least 10 Tory seats to gain any of the remaining 8 Tory councils in London. Indeed it could be the only Tory council losses are to the LDs in Richmond and Kingston upon Thames while they pick up Havering after the collapse of the UKIP vote
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Not unless they can find a way to take their seats without pledging to serve the Queen.
Not even if Britain (plus NI) became a republic would SF take seats in Westminster. It’s not just that the UK is a monarchy and they are republicans: they’re Irish republicans which means that they won’t take seats in a foreign parliament ane especially not one that claims sovereignty over part of Ireland.
This whole “could SF take their seats if X happens?” thing needs to die in a fire. There are no circumstances in which SF would ever take up their seats at Westminster. It’s the QTWTAIN sans pareil.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
I don't think an ardent Remainer will be winning votes from Labour, no. But an ardent Leaver will lose a lot of votes to Labour, and even under May this will happen IMO to a pretty significant degree in London this year. The UKIP vote was concentrated mostly in boroughs which the Tories already hold, so it will bolster them in Bromley, Bexley and Havering. Croydon is an exception nevertheless the Tories have no chance of winning that back.
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
The Tories do not hold Havering it is NOC so UKIP votes could help the Tories win control there.
Labour need over 10 gains to win either Wandsworth and Westminster and even in June the Tories won an MP in each, that was not the case in Wandsworth in 1997 or 2001 for instance when the Tories still held the borough
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
There's more to it than that I think. They don't recognise Westminster's jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
Yet they take their seats (and a place in the executive) at Stormont.
But they agreed to Stormont. Westminster was imposed upon them by a colonial master.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
"An area where Corbyn’s LAB might be concerned is evidence of eroding support is from the younger age groups."
What evidence? Corbyn has proved he can mobilise the youth when it matters, during an election campaign. The fact his support drifts a bit outside of this is unsurprising and irrelevant.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
Mr. Eagles, if Blairite meddling has taught us anything, it's to beware of constitutional tinkering that hasn't been fully considered. Disestablishing the Church of England because you don't like a handful of bishops having seats in the Lords is daft indeed.
Wasn’t the Q4 figure 0.5%, which would annualise to about 2.1%?
I'm sure william will apologise if it turns out his pro-EU propaganda is incorrect.
The on off debate as to whether we are 0.1% here, or 0.5% there, or 4% over 15 years, or 6%, or 1% down already on where we would've been, or whatever, I think misses a few things amongst which are:-
1) Economic forecasting does not have a stellar record. E.g. Osborne's predicted recession if we voted out, or the various international bodies getting the UK economy wrong in recent years, (Brown's "no more boom and bust" anyone?) so forecasting over a decade way is for the birds.
2) Though I did not "vote to make myself poorer", I did so with my eyes open and I am not, nor was ever, going to sell my soul for a decimal point of GDP over a year or a few points over a decade.
For many, this was not about the money. It never was. Having come to see the EU as not interested in reform (in my view), it's about wanting to live in a responsive democracy in my old age, where I can still meaningfully fire my govt, and not have my identity rubbed out for some attempt at creating a "superstate".
If that involves some sacrifice in my wallet so I can look myself in the mirror comfortably in 15 years time so be it. I do not wish that of course, and actually I don't think that will be the case, but I sure as hell am not going to be persuaded by a graph of the last 4 quarters stats on anything.
The Experts making predictions in 2016 couldn't even get 2017 right. Why should we take their 2030 predictions seriously?
Any forecast can be extremely sophisticated in its data modelling and write-up.
But that means nothing if its underlying assumptions are flawed.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.
Mr. Eagles, if Blairite meddling has taught us anything, it's to beware of constitutional tinkering that hasn't been fully considered. Disestablishing the Church of England because you don't like a handful of bishops having seats in the Lords is daft indeed.
Abolish the Lords, and have a fully elected chamber, will clearly defined powers.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.
Yes, thanks for spotting that, I meant an oath.
Wow, 'fingers crossed' - that actually happens outside of the playground?
I think the oath is symbolically more important than a Corbo premiership for them....
Though I suspect an election would be called if for any reason the Tories lost their majority.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
Yes, the same demographic issues that are causing problems with health and social care are also reducing the number of betting opportunities from by-elections.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
They are not "girls" they are women.
And presenting them as a notional prize in a sporting event is a disgusting anachronism that can't last much longer.
Have you asked them whether they find their work "disgusting?"
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.
It is unlikely but far from impossible. Moreover at this stage of the 1992 Parliament not a single Tory MP had passed away. That Parliament also saw three Tory defections - one to Labour and two to the LibDems.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.
Though Westminster is also known for its extreme NIMBYism; its edicts forcing bars etc to close early or shut altogether are always in the news, it is very fierce on parking and planning also. I can imagine this makes the council quite popular amongst chattering class type residents who are not likely to vote Tory nationally. Labour's vote is also clustered North Korea style in a few wards. So I think it likely the Tories will hold Westminster but I'm less sure about Wandsworth.
Growth in the UK may well have been 2.3-2.5% last year, were it not for Brexit. One would expect a lower growth rate due to some firms and individuals holding off investment due to uncertainty over the negotiations and relationship end-state. But, GBP currency would also have been at a higher value, which might have worked the other way, and we'd have very probably had net immigration continuing to run at well over 350k a year.
It's a world away from flatlining, let alone recession, and says very little about our future long-term economic performance or what sort of country we'll be.
I suspect a large secondary part of SF not taking their seats is that it means they simply don't have to be pinned down on Westminster matters. It is mightily convenient to be able to abstain every single vote (And have a prime excuse ready to do so), you can project whatever you wish to the electorate.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Not unless they can find a way to take their seats without pledging to serve the Queen.
Not even if Britain (plus NI) became a republic would SF take seats in Westminster. It’s not just that the UK is a monarchy and they are republicans: they’re Irish republicans which means that they won’t take seats in a foreign parliament and especially not one that claims sovereignty over part of Ireland.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.
Band D 2017/18: Westminster: £688 Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....
£1417 is astonishingly cheap for band D. The band E I am looking at is 2.2k/year ! £688 is just crazy.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.
It is unlikely but far from impossible. Moreover at this stage of the 1992 Parliament not a single Tory MP had passed away. That Parliament also saw three Tory defections - one to Labour and two to the LibDems.
Also Lord James Douglas Hamilton renounced his hereditary peerage to prevent a by-election, despite not having a cat in hell's chance of being re-elected in 97.
Roundabouts and swings though. The Tories are at 40% in the polls now rather than circa 25% in the mid 90s. They would have a good chance of holding by-elections in the likes of Christchurch and Newbury today, which were lost in the 1990s. It depends not just on how many by-elections happen, but on where they happen. Worth saying that many by-elections in recent years came about through resignation, and presumably that can mostly be avoided if necessary through carrots and sticks.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.
Band D 2017/18: Westminster: £688 Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....
£1417 is astonishingly cheap for band D. The band E I am looking at is 2.2k/year ! £688 is just crazy.
That’s if you can actually find a Band D home anywhere in Westminster. Maybe the odd shoebox studio or two.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.
SF will never accept the validity of the British government to rule over the island of Ireland.Asking them to take up their seats at Westminster would be like asking me to cross a picket line.It's a line in the sand you never cross.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I'm not sure your first sentence does - those factors will apply (post-1997) more-or-less to Tories and Labour MPs alike. Your point about willingness to retire is a good one.
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
That is correct. The Tories need to lose 7 -it isnt going to happen.
It is unlikely but far from impossible. Moreover at this stage of the 1992 Parliament not a single Tory MP had passed away. That Parliament also saw three Tory defections - one to Labour and two to the LibDems.
Also Lord James Douglas Hamilton renounced his hereditary peerage to prevent a by-election, despite not having a cat in hell's chance of being re-elected in 97.
Roundabouts and swings though. The Tories are at 40% in the polls now rather than circa 25% in the mid 90s. They would have a good chance of holding by-elections in the likes of Christchurch and Newbury today, which were lost in the 1990s. It depends not just on how many by-elections happen, but on where they happen. Worth saying that many by-elections in recent years came about through resignation, and presumably that can mostly be avoided if necessary through carrots and sticks.
I don't disagree really - though the LibDems might still fancy their chances in Newbury in the circumstances of a by election.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
They are not "girls" they are women.
And presenting them as a notional prize in a sporting event is a disgusting anachronism that can't last much longer.
Have you asked them whether they find their work "disgusting?"
I'm not sure I'm going to take lectures on what's disgusting, or not, from a poster who posts about burning funeral invitations from two recently deceased individuals whom he believed to be Leavers.
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.
Band D 2017/18: Westminster: £688 Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....
Here in rural Oxfordshire, with few of Camden's problems, £1,600 is a typical band D. £688 is the outlier, not £1,417.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I'm not sure your first sentence does - those factors will apply (post-1997) more-or-less to Tories and Labour MPs alike. Your point about willingness to retire is a good one.
No it doesn't apply alike, since the first sentence is related to the one about retirement.
If life-expectancy increases then that will reduce morbidity at a certain age, but in the long-run we all have a morbidity rate of 100%. You need to combine the two factors.
Increasing life expectancy will reduce the morbidity rate in office of those who retire dramatically more than those who don't.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
I'm not sure your first sentence does - those factors will apply (post-1997) more-or-less to Tories and Labour MPs alike. Your point about willingness to retire is a good one.
Yes, but there are also many more Tory MPs to Labour MPs, and they will tend to come from more marginal seats, and so be younger. Remember: the Tories only had 198 MPs up to 2010 and there's been a huge turnover within, and on top, of that number since then.
By contrast, Labour held onto well over 200 MPs in its core industrial heartlands in old WWC areas throughout that whole period, many of whom were older men who might have had more complex and chronic conditions from their working days, so the turnover has been less.
I don't know if anyone's noticed, but in Spain, the Catalan parliament has decided not to decide on re-electing Puigdemont as leader. The vote has been postponed - with no new date set - which leaves Catalonia without a leader.
Madrid said they wouldn’t give Catalonia any power back if they did
Question is whether they had over to Catalan government without a leader or use as an excuse to keep it in central hands
May should stay leader (net): GB: +7 London: -5 South: +14 Midlands: +6 North: +5 Scotland: -4
London a clear outlier in England.
Perhaps a clue the Conservatives will be taking a pounding in the May local elections. Stephen Hammond made an extraordinary plea for a Tory vote in May - he sees a "difficult" night ahead.
I also read Hammond's article in the Standard on the train home last night and thought it pretty extraordinary from a recent minister.
It's obvious the Tories are going to get an awful pounding in London in May (don't tell HYUFD) but unless May was replaced by a business-friendly Remainer like Hammond or Hunt a change of leader isn't going to change that. In the more likely instance that she was replaced by a hard Leaver like Boris or Mogg the Tory performance in London would be even worse.
Don't forget Labour won the 2014 London local elections by 11% over the Tories and 20 councils to 9 for the Tories, UKIP won 10% in London then so an ardent Remainer would likely fail to win many more from Labour given Labour comfortably beat the pro EU Cameron led Tories anyway in the capital while failing to gain as many from UKIP as a Brexiter would (and the latter point would be even more the case in the local elections outside London where Labour led by 2% in 2014 and UKIP won 17% of the vote)
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
Another factor is Council Tax - would you rather pay Westminster or Camden levels?
As a cyclist, I'd rather pay Camden council tax and get Camden cycling infrastructure. Westminster is the epitome of the "charge nothing, do nothing" type of Conservative council.
Band D 2017/18: Westminster: £688 Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....
Here in rural Oxfordshire, with few of Camden's problems, £1,600 is a typical band D. £688 is the outlier, not £1,417.
You think Labour should campaign on increasing Council Tax?
Though May still leads Corbyn as best PM. Of course Labour needs three by election gains from the Tories to stop the Tory + DUP majority but even then Corbyn would only become PM with SNP, Plaid, Green, LD, Sinn Fein and Lady Harmon support which would be very unstable
No - the Tories need to lose seven by elections.
Sinn Fein don't take their seats. Would they under Corbyn minority government needing support?
Depends what Corbyn offered them? A border poll with his govt taking a neutral position and him personally acting as a persuader for a United Ireland and I could see them on the first Ryanair over...
They don't take their seats because it would require a vote of allegiance to the Queen, right?
It's not a vote. It's an oath I think. They could always give the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back as some MPs do. I think the oath is the only sticking point but it's a big one symbolically.
The problem is sitting at Westminster. That's an absolute no no for Sinn Fein.
They don't need to sit to vote in the lobby.
To vote in the Commons they have to 'swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.' Which, if you believe that you were elected to take your constituents away from allegience to et etc is a bit difficult.
Over the years one or two mainland MP's have crossed their fingers behind their backs, but at least SF are above such childish tricks.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
Many Labour MPs have a principled objection to going to the Lords. Only some swallow their previous opposition, like Prescott and Hattersley.
I think a more compelling reason is that the average Tory MP, often after a spell as a mid ranking minister, can usually retire in middle age to a comfortable directorship or two. Think Willetts or Pickles and there are dozens more similar examples. Labour MPs can't easily get back into teaching, social work or race relations advising at age 55, and it wouldn't pay nearly as well as the MP salary they've gotten used to.
It wasn't unusual for Labour MPs of previous generations to die in poverty, even famous ones like Walter Harrison (dep. chief whip in the Callaghan govt).
@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GE
It was only when I got to university, some four years after the event, that someone finally explained to me why Stephen Milligan died with an orange in his mouth.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
Many Labour MPs have a principled objection to going to the Lords. Only some swallow their previous opposition, like Prescott and Hattersley.
I think a more compelling reason is that the average Tory MP, often after a spell as a mid ranking minister, can usually retire in middle age to a comfortable directorship or two. Think Willetts or Pickles and there are dozens more similar examples. Labour MPs can't easily get back into teaching, social work or race relations advising at age 55, and it wouldn't pay nearly as well as the MP salary they've gotten used to.
It wasn't unusual for Labour MPs of previous generations to die in poverty, even famous ones like Walter Harrison (dep. chief whip in the Callaghan govt).
@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GE
And some Lab MPs will probably back it too, either because they themselves are Leavers or because they can live with the deal and are worried about the leap in the dark that rejecting it would represent.
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
But he’s the Bishop of Rome.
Ergo CR’s point is spot on.
I like HYUFD, and he is an asset to this site, and at the same time I suspect this will be yet another of example of him being unable to admit he was wrong.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
My first sentence does.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
Many Labour MPs have a principled objection to going to the Lords. Only some swallow their previous opposition, like Prescott and Hattersley.
I think a more compelling reason is that the average Tory MP, often after a spell as a mid ranking minister, can usually retire in middle age to a comfortable directorship or two. Think Willetts or Pickles and there are dozens more similar examples. Labour MPs can't easily get back into teaching, social work or race relations advising at age 55, and it wouldn't pay nearly as well as the MP salary they've gotten used to.
It wasn't unusual for Labour MPs of previous generations to die in poverty, even famous ones like Walter Harrison (dep. chief whip in the Callaghan govt).
That might have been the case in the past. These days, there's a much greater overlap in the social backgrounds of MPs, and those retiring in their 60s after 20+ years in the House have got very decent pensions to fall back on, leaving aside any other income they pick up.
@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GE
And some Lab MPs will probably back it too, either because they themselves are Leavers or because they can live with the deal and are worried about the leap in the dark that rejecting it would represent.
Or possibly some informal pairing going on. I said before that I’m expecting to see a photo of Ken Clarke and Kate Hoey sat on the Terrace with G&Ts in hand as the vote goes down.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years older
@patrickwintour: Intrigue. Unite GS Len McCluskey says "My personal hope and belief is that the Brexit deal that comes back will be rejected, leading to T May having to resign and to an early GE". That GE then becomes a referendum. If MPs don't reject deal, he will look at any option.
This is clearly Corbyn's strategy. The only sure way the Tories can pre-empt it is by offering a second referendum.
I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the final deal, especially if the consequence is another GE
And some Lab MPs will probably back it too, either because they themselves are Leavers or because they can live with the deal and are worried about the leap in the dark that rejecting it would represent.
Or possibly some informal pairing going on. I said before that I’m expecting to see a photo of Ken Clarke and Kate Hoey sat on the Terrace with G&Ts in hand as the vote goes down.
On topic, life expectancy has increased, treatment of chronic conditions, heart disease and cancer has improved, and the average age of MPs has come down, since the 1990s. In addition, MPs are now more professional, female and middle-class, with far fewer from working class backgrounds involving heavy manual work, or military backgrounds who might be carrying over long-term injuries from WW2, so I'm not surprised the death-rate has dropped.
That doesn't really explain the discrepancy between the number of Labour deaths in office and the number of Tory ones.
I thought a lot of it was due to the size of the 1997 rout - introducing a lot of Labour MPs who weren’t expecting to win and are now 20 years older
I don't think so. The 1997 rout would presumably have reduced the average age of Labour MPs not increased it. In fact most if not all of those I can think of who have died as MPs were MPs prior to 1997.
If anything the rout would have contributed but in the opposite direction - not by introducing a lot of Labour MPs but by removing many Tory MPs who may have otherwise remained in the Commons and later died.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I think that's complacent. As well as Khan's pathetic forelock-tugging before the shriekingly over-sensitive, we've had darts walk-on girls banned and calls for likewise with F1 grid girls.
Because if equality means anything, it means forcing women to be covered up and making them unemployed if they make a career choice that isn't approved by the Mob...
Did you feel the same when Boris Johnson banned some Christian advertising on buses during his tenure as Mayor?
It wasn't Boris - it was TFL - and the High Court upheld the ban:
I’ve always thought anti-gay was synonymous with Christian as some Christians keep on telling us.
Anyone who believes the Old Testament (which is where the gay bashers refer to) has the same status as the New is barely a Christian.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality
There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament however, The manner in which Elisha dealt with children who mocked him for his baldness, for example.
Do share. It’s been decades since I read the Book of Kings
Though it was a Plantagenet King, Richard II, who first appointed Bishops to the Lords.
Doesn't detract from the point. Why does he get a vote - and say UK Roman Catholic cardinals don't - in parliament.
The Church of England is the established church of England. The Roman Catholic one isn't - nor any other.
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
JRM is a traitor who takes his orders from Europe rather than HMQ.
Pope Francis is Argentine not European
Regardless of his nationality, he still issues his orders from Rome.
As leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, not the European Catholic Church
Ha! There we have it
Though your point is interesting in that some diehard Leavers have seen the EU as a project to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire of which England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland were never a part unlike Germany, France and Italy and the Benelux nations who originally founded the EEC
Comments
These things a cyclical, and doubtless the "uncertainty" in and of itself is a drag on us for a bit. Germany is certainly not going to turn from a BMW into a Trabant, and nor should we wish that.
But like I said I voted for the 2030's not 2020.
IMO a key factor is whether professional voters pissed off with Brexit will still be prepared to vote for their relatively popular Tory council. This applies to Wandsworth and Westminster particularly. Even during the dark days of 1992-2005, the Tories held these boroughs easily in local elections whilst losing them in GEs.
UKIP>Con votes the difference metween Mrs May and Corbyn being PM.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/958113051185696769
This whole “could SF take their seats if X happens?” thing needs to die in a fire. There are no circumstances in which SF would ever take up their seats at Westminster. It’s the QTWTAIN sans pareil.
Labour need over 10 gains to win either Wandsworth and Westminster and even in June the Tories won an MP in each, that was not the case in Wandsworth in 1997 or 2001 for instance when the Tories still held the borough
Apart from the UK, which is the other country in the world that appoints religious office holders to their legislature?
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/958312184383229952
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_for_Vatican_City_State
It's a Shi'ite idea.
What evidence? Corbyn has proved he can mobilise the youth when it matters, during an election campaign. The fact his support drifts a bit outside of this is unsurprising and irrelevant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/30/brendan-cole-leaves-strictly-come-dancing-14-years-bbc-failed/
They should have got rid of that awful Ballas woman.
Any forecast can be extremely sophisticated in its data modelling and write-up.
But that means nothing if its underlying assumptions are flawed.
Wow, 'fingers crossed' - that actually happens outside of the playground?
I think the oath is symbolically more important than a Corbo premiership for them....
Though I suspect an election would be called if for any reason the Tories lost their majority.
Since 2010 there have been only nine by-elections caused by death or resignation due to illness. There’s been 21 for various other reasons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(2010–present)
It's a world away from flatlining, let alone recession, and says very little about our future long-term economic performance or what sort of country we'll be.
It is mightily convenient to be able to abstain every single vote (And have a prime excuse ready to do so), you can project whatever you wish to the electorate.
EDIT: I might also add that many more Tory MPs (Lawson, Howe, Heath, Heseltine, Thatcher, Sir George Young etc) chose to retire or move to the Lords prior to passing on. This might not have been the case prior to 1997GE when the Tories could bank on a lot of hereditaries in the Upper House.
Stands in contrast to those like Kaufmann and Skinner who did (and probably will) stay MPs until the end.
Westminster: £688
Camden: £1,417
I trust that extra £719/year is well spent.....
Anyway, I must be off.
Which national football team is in UEFA but not FIFA?
£688 is just crazy.
“ Love thy neighbour as thyself” is all Christ had to say about homosexuality
That might be an anachronism but it is at least a logical anachronism within itself.
Roundabouts and swings though. The Tories are at 40% in the polls now rather than circa 25% in the mid 90s. They would have a good chance of holding by-elections in the likes of Christchurch and Newbury today, which were lost in the 1990s. It depends not just on how many by-elections happen, but on where they happen. Worth saying that many by-elections in recent years came about through resignation, and presumably that can mostly be avoided if necessary through carrots and sticks.
If life-expectancy increases then that will reduce morbidity at a certain age, but in the long-run we all have a morbidity rate of 100%. You need to combine the two factors.
Increasing life expectancy will reduce the morbidity rate in office of those who retire dramatically more than those who don't.
By contrast, Labour held onto well over 200 MPs in its core industrial heartlands in old WWC areas throughout that whole period, many of whom were older men who might have had more complex and chronic conditions from their working days, so the turnover has been less.
Question is whether they had over to Catalan government without a leader or use as an excuse to keep it in central hands
Which, if you believe that you were elected to take your constituents away from allegience to et etc is a bit difficult.
Over the years one or two mainland MP's have crossed their fingers behind their backs, but at least SF are above such childish tricks.
I think a more compelling reason is that the average Tory MP, often after a spell as a mid ranking minister, can usually retire in middle age to a comfortable directorship or two. Think Willetts or Pickles and there are dozens more similar examples. Labour MPs can't easily get back into teaching, social work or race relations advising at age 55, and it wouldn't pay nearly as well as the MP salary they've gotten used to.
It wasn't unusual for Labour MPs of previous generations to die in poverty, even famous ones like Walter Harrison (dep. chief whip in the Callaghan govt).
Ergo CR’s point is spot on.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/958320583741247489
So, I'm fully expecting a dead cat or a squirrel.
Life comes at you fast etc.
https://twitter.com/leomiklasz/status/958264102232748032
I think US growth is at 2.3% as well actually, but because they report their figures differently it is more difficult to check.
If anything the rout would have contributed but in the opposite direction - not by introducing a lot of Labour MPs but by removing many Tory MPs who may have otherwise remained in the Commons and later died.
All forecasts show a negative impact.
The Cabinet Office’s
The SNP’s
Treasury’s
The OBR’s
The IMF’s
Steve Baker is not fit to hold public office.