Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lib Dems can do it on a drizzly Thursday in February – but wha

24

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,472
    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,599
    FF43 said:

    The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:



    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    They still absolutely and totally don't get it.

    Which is why we left. Dummkopfs.

    And you appear to have completely missed the point.

    May is begging them for stuff.

    They are pointing out the stuff she is begging for we have right now, and is in jeopardy only because we are leaving.

    Dummkopfs.
    But the UK is leaving. The question now is what comes after.
    Easy. Going back in again.
    Can't see that happening in the next 18 months.
    No, we have to leave first.
    Yeah, and there's the thirty year gap in between before another referendum. Only fair ;)
    About 10 years, I reckon. We have to start accession talks before it can go to a referendum.
    You really think they'll want the UK back after having forced them to go through this process less than a decade earlier?
    I had got the impression on here that the UK's financial contribution to the EU was so huge and our appetite for German cars so insatiable that we've got the whip hand in negotiations. On the same basis surely they'd be gagging to have us back?

    Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick.
    Certainly what you would think if this was only place you got your info. Maybe it is not a bluff after all and the UK team are as crap and deluded as they seem to be and the EU really will kick them in the nuts.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,030
    DavidL said:

    The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.

    Sounds familiar.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,490
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:


    DavidL said:

    The weird thing about the polling at the moment is that so many remainers still seem to think that Labour and Corbyn are the answer to their prayers. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary a very significant proportion of Labour's support seems to be under the delusion that Labour is committed to remaining in the Single Market, for example.

    Corbyn has managed to maintain some sort of constructive ambiguity about his position (at least for those not really paying attention) and it has starved the Lib Dems of their natural support. If the Lib Dems had any sense they would be doing everything in their power to expose the fact that it is difficult to get a fag paper between Corbyn's and May's position on Brexit and trying to peel away Labour supporters who actually care.

    I suspect the numbers who do care are less than generally thought (notwithstanding the evidence on this Board) but it would be a start. With 40 odd percent still thinking that Brexit is a mistake the party of remain really should be in double figures. And it isn't despite these excellent bye-election results.

    You can think it is a mistake but still prefer a Labour government to either see it through or have a softer version. The more realistic remainers realise you cannot reverse the result and in many places voting for the Lib Dems is a waste.

    That and even those who don't want it and think Labour do want it have other priorities.
    Yes but what about the Labour supporters in Tory Lib Dem marginals? Why are they not being picked up? Even if you are not motivated to vote Lib Dem in a Labour/Tory seat why are Labour voters not voting more tactically where theirs is the wasted vote?
    The problem for the Lib Dems is that the Tories are so far ahead in most such seats that even tactical voting by Labour wouldn't help them.
    There is a lot of political volatility as shown last spring.

    Plenty are willing to vote LD locally even if less keen nationally.
  • Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,982

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    fwiw, I would switch from Lab to Con, were Anna Soubry to be elected leader!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,240

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.
  • Scott_P said:
    Yet another example of the Labour leadership’s commitment to democracy :-D

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,843

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    fwiw, I would switch from Lab to Con, were Anna Soubry to be elected leader!
    More than outweighed by the number of Leave voting Tories who would switch from Tory to UKIP or even Tory to Labour were Soubry Tory leader (Corbyn at least backs Brexit and leaving the single market unlike Soubry)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,472

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
  • Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    fwiw, I would switch from Lab to Con, were Anna Soubry to be elected leader!
    Me too! Brexit would be dead! Huzzah! Anyway, just off to photograph the squadron of pigs flying by.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,765
    Barnesian said:



    I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.

    Yes, fair enough!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,842
    HYUFD said:

    More than outweighed by the number of Leave voting Tories who would switch from Tory to UKIP or even Tory to Labour were Soubry Tory leader (Corbyn at least backs Brexit and leaving the single market unlike Soubry)

    Compensated by the previous Tory voters who deserted the party last time because of Brexit
  • RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:



    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    They still absolutely and totally don't get it.

    Which is why we left. Dummkopfs.

    And you appear to have completely missed the point.

    May is begging them for stuff.

    They are pointing out the stuff she is begging for we have right now, and is in jeopardy only because we are leaving.

    Dummkopfs.
    But the UK is leaving. The question now is what comes after.
    Easy. Going back in again.
    Can't see that happening in the next 18 months.
    No, we have to leave first.
    Yeah, and there's the thirty year gap in between before another referendum. Only fair ;)
    About 10 years, I reckon. We have to start accession talks before it can go to a referendum.
    You really think they'll want the UK back after having forced them to go through this process less than a decade earlier?
    It’ll be in the terms.

    We sign up for a minimum of 99 years and the early exit fee will be €1 trillion per year of our early exit.

    Plus Luke 15:7
    As one of the 48% do I have to repent as part of the collective or is that exclusively the responsibility of the 52%?

    Why should I repent my sin when I did not sin?

    EU divinity is very complicated!
    Only the true Messiah denies their divinity.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,490

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
    Yes, by 2022 all will have new leaders, and I think Corbyn would be on the back benches happily as a latter day Tony Benn.

  • Scott_P said:
    We can expect another humiliating May retreat very soon, then, as the Brexit loons go beserk.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,919

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
    Last night I had a dream that Rory Stewart had been elected Tory leader.

    Very strange. I may go and see my GP.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,403
    Surely the assumption that UKIP voters will switch to the Tories en-masse has been thoroughly debunked by GE17?
  • New reports out from Cook, Sabato, and CNN in the race for control of the US Senate.

    Each takes the Democrat's prospects out a notch, principally in struggling to hold blue seats in red states.

    As most people would understand control of the Senate, it looks pretty tough for the Dems. As Betfair understands it, very unlikely indeed.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,997
    edited February 17
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
    It's a good point, but these byelections show the Lib Dems achieving stunning results if they get cut through. Things Must Change is a big force in politics right now and all parties are trying to catch the market. But they are struggling to be both different and coherent. The Lib Dems need to stress their differences more, for their own good.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,842
    Yvette likes it!. Can't see any problem with this from the Tory benches...

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,395
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
    That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,997

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    Do you know the words?
  • Surely the assumption that UKIP voters will switch to the Tories en-masse has been thoroughly debunked by GE17?

    It's not just where they switch though. If they switched evenly, most of UKIP's seats would go blue, because the Tories were in second last time.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,919

    Scott_P said:
    We can expect another humiliating May retreat very soon, then, as the Brexit loons go beserk.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,843
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
    That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
    Plus after the Blair and Cameron governments they have effectively had a government which has represented them for most of the past 2 decades, they will have to get used to being out of power for a bit and the Socialists and pro Brexit social conservatives getting a chance
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,843

    Surely the assumption that UKIP voters will switch to the Tories en-masse has been thoroughly debunked by GE17?

    Over 50% of UKIP voters still went Tory at GE17
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,843
    edited February 17
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    More than outweighed by the number of Leave voting Tories who would switch from Tory to UKIP or even Tory to Labour were Soubry Tory leader (Corbyn at least backs Brexit and leaving the single market unlike Soubry)

    Compensated by the previous Tory voters who deserted the party last time because of Brexit
    Not that many, most Labour gains came in Tory Leave seats at the last general election, Tory Remain seats went LD almost as often as Labour.

    All Tory gains from Labour came in Labour Leave seats
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,078
    Faisal Islam is an incredible journalist - few would know which side of the fence he is on Brexit such is his commitment to reporting both sides.

    Chapeaux.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,472
    FF43 said:

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    Do you know the words?
    Lyric sheets were distributed!
  • Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    'Pleasant pragmatism' appeals to nice upper-middle class people who live in nice upper-middle class safezones. People who have nice lives with much to lose from change.

    But 'pleasant pragmatism' has led to a collapse in home ownership among the young, the student debt disaster, triple lock pensions, Middle Eastern warmongering, 239 consecutive months of trade deficits, government debt in trillions, uncontrolled immigration and leaving the EU.
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
    That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
    Except for Cameron winning a majority like that?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,240

    Barnesian said:



    I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.

    Yes, fair enough!
    Although I support Corbyn and his potential to transform society for the better, the person in the world that I admire the most is a very successful capitalist.

    Elon Musk is making an enormous contribution to the future of the human race by his promotion of, and investment in, sustainable energy, planetary exploration and harnessing of artificial intelligence. It's a step up from potholes.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,997

    Scott_P said:
    We can expect another humiliating May retreat very soon, then, as the Brexit loons go beserk.

    May doesn't need to make that particular humiliating retreat until next year, after we formally left the EU and by then it will likely be someone else who makes it. May is entirely focused on getting to March next year and out of the EU without everything going tits up. Procrastination is the name of the game.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,755
    TGOHF said:
    They said it could never happen.....

    They still do.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,755

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
    Last night I had a dream that Rory Stewart had been elected Tory leader.

    Very strange. I may go and see my GP.
    See your bookie first!
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,093
    TGOHF said:

    Faisal Islam is an incredible journalist - few would know which side of the fence he is on Brexit such is his commitment to reporting both sides.

    Chapeaux.

    Which side is he on?
  • Scott_P said:

    Yvette likes it!. Can't see any problem with this from the Tory benches...

    What is the role for the ECJ on Europol?


    On the EAW it clearly does have some role, but even with the benefit of a pretty chunking briefing paper (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/16/16.pdf) I am still not clear on how many references were made to the ECJ (CJEU in the paper) on EAW matters.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,093
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:



    I agree with your last paragraph. It's the reason I defend Corbyn and would vote Labour in a Labour marginal. I was setting out a pragmatic centrist position for the LibDems that might appeal to many conservative people who don't want a revolution but despair of the direction that the Tory party is taking. It gives people a choice. It's a real difference. It's the point of the LibDems.

    Yes, fair enough!
    Although I support Corbyn and his potential to transform society for the better, the person in the world that I admire the most is a very successful capitalist.

    Elon Musk is making an enormous contribution to the future of the human race by his promotion of, and investment in, sustainable energy, planetary exploration and harnessing of artificial intelligence. It's a step up from potholes.
    Marx would probably say the same.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,462

    DavidL said:

    The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.

    Sounds familiar.
    You had you chance and bottled it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,755

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    Good inside knowledge: Socialists can actually stand for an anthem.....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,078

    TGOHF said:

    Faisal Islam is an incredible journalist - few would know which side of the fence he is on Brexit such is his commitment to reporting both sides.

    Chapeaux.

    Which side is he on?
    We may never know. He is like Brigadeer Balanced from Balanced Land.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,843

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
    That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
    Except for Cameron winning a majority like that?
    He won a majority in 2015 promising a referendum on the EU, he did not win a majority in 2010 when that was not a promise in the Tory manifesto
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,398

    FF43 said:

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    Do you know the words?
    Lyric sheets were distributed!
    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,919

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    The choice is not Corbyn or a centrist. It is Corbyn or someone else on the Labour left without his back-story. But it isn’t going to happen. Corbyn is going nowhere this side of the next GE. Who the Tories pick to replace May will determine the outcome.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative, Labour and LibDem all went into the next GE with a new leader.
    Last night I had a dream that Rory Stewart had been elected Tory leader.

    Very strange. I may go and see my GP.
    See your bookie first!
    :lol:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,843

    Like The Jezziah, I don't think the argument from, say, Morris Dancer, that if we had a centrist leader he'd need to "think about" how to vote is very persuasive. They used to say of the hereditary Lords that they would consider the issues carefully and then vote with the Conservatives, and I know quite a lot of Tories like that - they would like a not-too-dissimilar opposition, but not to the point of actually voting for it. (Similarly, I wouldn't mind Anna Soubry as a Tory leader, despite our personal differences in the past, but I wouldn't vote for her.)

    The case for having a centrist Labour leader is more defensive - as Southam says, if the Tories had an attractive centrist leader they'd appeal to non-Corbyn Labour voters. But firstly it's hard to see who that would be - the Tories have really been through the pack and everyone looks exhausted, before you even start to look at their policies. And secondly, a lot of us feel that politics isn't worth bothering with if the choice is between a couple of very similar people. The case for Labour at the moment is simply that society is seriously unbalanced after nearly a decade of Conservative-led rule, and Labour would quie clearly try to address that, while a Tory government by a hard-right Mogg or a chancer like Boris would equally clearly not.

    Yes, as Foxy says there's plenty of scope for discussing detailed policies and competence issues (though the current government does not set a high bar on that, does it?). But switching to a steady-as-we-go centrist as Barnesian argues just feels wrong for where Britain is today. I recognise the appeal of pleasant pragmatism - my father was very much in that camp - but we actually need a period of left-wing government to make our society more socially viable.

    'Pleasant pragmatism' appeals to nice upper-middle class people who live in nice upper-middle class safezones. People who have nice lives with much to lose from change.

    But 'pleasant pragmatism' has led to a collapse in home ownership among the young, the student debt disaster, triple lock pensions, Middle Eastern warmongering, 239 consecutive months of trade deficits, government debt in trillions, uncontrolled immigration and leaving the EU.
    The upper middle classes were of course the only social group which voted for Remain in 2016 and May's Tories in 2017, the status quo was fine by them
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,945

    Scott_P said:

    Yvette likes it!. Can't see any problem with this from the Tory benches...

    What is the role for the ECJ on Europol?


    On the EAW it clearly does have some role, but even with the benefit of a pretty chunking briefing paper (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/16/16.pdf) I am still not clear on how many references were made to the ECJ (CJEU in the paper) on EAW matters.
    The reference to remaining in the EAW is the first part of May's negotiation approach I've actively disliked. I presume it stems from her authoritarian streak, which is a muscle she toned during her Home Secretary days.

    If we need any form of extradition treaty it should be bilateral with proper safeguards for British citizens being extradited to European countries that don't, quite frankly, share our standards of individual rights, or jurisprudence.

    I would trust judgements on very few cases brought to a Bulgarian court.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,765
    RoyalBlue said:



    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.

    It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,945
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    As crazy as it sounds, part of it must be that the average person is relatively happy with the positions of the big 2 even if the leaders are poor, and they feel the lds don't offer anything. There comes a point where that must be accepted as if the main two really are do bad other explanations woukd cease preventing a ld rise eventually.
    That is so. May is popular with Conservative voters, Corbyn with Labour voters. The number of voters who want a fiscally dry, socially liberal, pro-EU party is not large enough to make much headway under FPTP.
    I think an Osborne led Conservative Party would have been hovering around 30% very quickly.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,945

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,756

    RoyalBlue said:



    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.

    It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
    Nick, whilst you are on, do you have any more information on Labour's proposed animal rights legislation, in particular the proposal (as I think you said, sorry if I got it wrong) to allow protesters onto land the hunt may be going over?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,030
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.

    Sounds familiar.
    You had you chance and bottled it.
    You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it.
    Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
  • Winter Olympics: Elise Christie reaches 1500m semis & Atkin wins bronze

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/43095324

    Interesting choice of order in the BBC headline.

    Elise Christie must be better known for the 'Frank Spencer' performances then for the times she actually wins medals.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.

    Sounds familiar.
    You had you chance and bottled it.
    You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it.
    Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
    You just love emigrants pontificating on the UK and Scotland in particular.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,030

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
    Brave given the age of the average Con member.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,240

    RoyalBlue said:



    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.

    It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
    LibDems too have a big influx of enthusiastic "amateurs". As an old stalwart, I'm having to prepare detailed telling instructions for people who have never done it before and need a bit of reassurance. When they've done it once, they'll be flying.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,215

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
    Bloody pinkos. In mine a spirited rendition of the Horst Wessel Lied before the Ladies Social Report.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,240

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
    :)
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,600

    RoyalBlue said:



    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.

    It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
    In my ultra-marginal of Bedford the local LAB party largely ignored last year's general election and it was the Tories and LDs who had GOTV ops. As it turned out LAB gained the seat back with a 3 figure majority.

    On the planned new boundaries CON wins by just 9 votes
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,539
    TGOHF said:
    I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet! :D
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,755
    Elise Christie must have shot God's dog.....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,539
    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.

    Sounds familiar.
    You had you chance and bottled it.
    You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it.
    Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
    You just love emigrants pontificating

    Morning Malc! :D
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,490
    Barnesian said:

    RoyalBlue said:



    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.

    It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
    LibDems too have a big influx of enthusiastic "amateurs". As an old stalwart, I'm having to prepare detailed telling instructions for people who have never done it before and need a bit of reassurance. When they've done it once, they'll be flying.
    Both LDs and Labour have had mass influxes of new members since Brexit, and keen to be more than clicktivists. Tories are fading away, probably only 70 000 members now. Hence the need for clear instruction needed by some parties, not others.

    Brexit and Corbynism have at least reinvigorated some parties. Mayism? less so...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,755
    JohnO said:

    Off topic: I have moved to a different Labour Party branch and went to my first branch meeting last night. We started the meeting by standing to sing The Red Flag. Makes a change from talking about jumble sales.

    In my local Conservative Party branch we start by singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
    Bloody pinkos. In mine a spirited rendition of the Horst Wessel Lied before the Ladies Social Report.
    Our branch has a Taliban-intolerance to singing.....
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,659
    Mr Barnesian,

    Talking of enthusiastic amateurs, one of my ex-colleagues has accused PETA of encouraging some young female members to go topless to draw attention to their cause. I, of course, admonished him and explained that it's all right for them to strip because they're doing it for free. Page Three girls are pressurised into taking large sums of money for it - so that makes it slavery.

    They certainly give the cause publicity. But then I am fairly shallow.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,472
    Now that they are bezzie mates with the DUP I thought that Conservative branch meetings would start with a rendition of The Sash.

    Anyway, I'm hoping for Bandiera Rossa next month.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,472

    RoyalBlue said:



    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.

    It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
    In my ultra-marginal of Bedford the local LAB party largely ignored last year's general election and it was the Tories and LDs who had GOTV ops. As it turned out LAB gained the seat back with a 3 figure majority.

    On the planned new boundaries CON wins by just 9 votes
    Shows how important the ground game is in a GE.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,981
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.

    Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.

    The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
    I don't think holding on is working for them. There's a possibility to reinvent themselves as the party of opportunity, international connection and liberal values. Brexit is the catalyst rather than the be all and end all. The two main parties have become very inward looking so that's the LD's chance. Worth them risking it in my view
    I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
    Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
    LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.

    Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.

    There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.

    There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
    I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202
    GIN1138 said:

    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    The budgets of EZ countries will be a matter for negotiation in Brussels and Frankfurt and deficits will be strictly controlled. Economic policy will largely be determined there too giving governments in member states very little say over how much they spend and, increasingly, how they spend it. Democracy will be very much diminished, roughly equivalent to the right to choose your local council.

    Sounds familiar.
    You had you chance and bottled it.
    You mean those easily cowed by threats bottled it.
    Of course people like you (insofar as you had anything to do with it) were wetting your panties and squealing louder than a One Direction crowd over that Project Fear.
    You just love emigrants pontificating

    Morning Malc! :D
    Morning Gin
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.

    Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.

    The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
    I don't think holding on is working for them. There's a possibility to reinvent themselves as the party of opportunity, international connection and liberal values. Brexit is the catalyst rather than the be all and end all. The two main parties have become very inward looking so that's the LD's chance. Worth them risking it in my view
    I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
    Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
    LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.

    Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.

    There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.

    There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
    I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
    It would cost more to means test and adminster paying / not paying etc rather than just making meals free for all.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,843
    edited February 17
    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    RoyalBlue said:



    The Labour Party has instructions and print outs for everything. I learnt that when I worked with Labour tellers outside a polling station. Whereas the Tories are given a small pad and pencil and a few words of instructions beforehand, the Labour person had two sides of instructions to tell them what they were doing, how they should do it and why it mattered.

    I thought it neatly encapsulated the difference in attitudes of the two parties.

    It varies! I've had exactly the reverse experience too. On the whole I think Labour traditionally has more amateurs doing their best with limited training, but it's starting to change.
    LibDems too have a big influx of enthusiastic "amateurs". As an old stalwart, I'm having to prepare detailed telling instructions for people who have never done it before and need a bit of reassurance. When they've done it once, they'll be flying.
    Both LDs and Labour have had mass influxes of new members since Brexit, and keen to be more than clicktivists. Tories are fading away, probably only 70 000 members now. Hence the need for clear instruction needed by some parties, not others.

    Brexit and Corbynism have at least reinvigorated some parties. Mayism? less so...
    Tim Bale's recent research showed the average Tory, Labour and LD member was each in their 50s, I know a number of UKIP activists who are now Tory activists since Brexit too
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,240
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.

    Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.

    The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
    I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
    Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
    LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.

    Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.

    There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.

    There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
    I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
    How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202
    GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:
    I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet! :D
    GIN, Merkel was at the kidding , poking a stick at the hapless UK whilst laughing up her cuff. Germans really do have a wicked sense of humour after all.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,395

    Now that they are bezzie mates with the DUP I thought that Conservative branch meetings would start with a rendition of The Sash.

    Anyway, I'm hoping for Bandiera Rossa next month.

    These days, it would be No More Catholics.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.

    Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.

    The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
    I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
    Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
    LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.

    Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.

    There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.

    There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
    I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
    How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
    Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202
    Sean_F said:

    Now that they are bezzie mates with the DUP I thought that Conservative branch meetings would start with a rendition of The Sash.

    Anyway, I'm hoping for Bandiera Rossa next month.

    These days, it would be No More Catholics.
    Tories in Scotland are at that all the time...https://twitter.com/80_mcswan
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,240
    edited February 17
    malcolmg said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.

    Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.

    The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
    I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
    Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
    LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.

    Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.

    There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.

    There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
    I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
    How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
    Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
    Quite. I'm just probing Charles's inconsistencies. :) A Socratic enquiry.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,042
    Sean_F said:

    Now that they are bezzie mates with the DUP I thought that Conservative branch meetings would start with a rendition of The Sash.

    Anyway, I'm hoping for Bandiera Rossa next month.

    These days, it would be No More Catholics.
    The dark underbelly of Unionism in action

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2240457/orange-order-joke-shooting-tims-college-students-threatened/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202
    Scott_P said:
    Looks like they want everything to be the same except not be in the EU
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,997
    edited February 17
    GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:
    I assume Scott and Will won't be as keen to "share" that Tweet! :D
    Of course the Germans, the Americans, South Koreans, everyone is happy to do bespoke deals.with us. Why wouldn't they? The rules of the Single Market protect us from bespokeness.

    Edit and as Merkel says, it will be a good deal. She wouldn't agree to it otherwise.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,842
    malcolmg said:

    Looks like they want everything to be the same except not be in the EU

    Just like the Indyref... :smiley:
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,395
    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    Now that they are bezzie mates with the DUP I thought that Conservative branch meetings would start with a rendition of The Sash.

    Anyway, I'm hoping for Bandiera Rossa next month.

    These days, it would be No More Catholics.
    Tories in Scotland are at that all the time...https://twitter.com/80_mcswan
    It's a very catchy tune.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,373
    Ms. Apocalypse, well, quite.

    The allegations include sex with children. The CEO's holier-than-thou outrage that people are upset by this is... not wise.
  • malcolmg said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    The byelections show the Lib Dems can make dramatic gains where they have infrastructure on the ground. The great political mystery right now is why the Lib Dems aren't doing better against two main parties that are so dire.

    Two problems for the Lib Dems. They lack that infrastructure in many places, having been hollowed out by their coalition years. Their national campaign is making no impression whatever.

    Curiously, Lib Dems must be picking up ex-UKIP voters.

    The LibDems main aim must be to simply stay in the game, until fortunes turn again.
    I agree. I see and promote the Lib dems as a sensible pragmatic open-minded party that is not wedded to a left or right wing ideology. It doesn't support private good, public bad, or the reverse, but what works. It is down to earth practical (potholes) and opposes Brexit on pragmatic not ideological grounds. Its only ideology is freedom from coercion, ignorance and conformity.
    Talk me through limits on numbers of children per child minder then. Or free school meals for middle class children.
    LibDems, being pragmatic, are in favour of coercion with regard to all driving on the left of the road.

    Free school meals for all children means better nutrition and better ability to concentrate.

    There are more difficult points you could have made. Should adult individuals be free to make choices that may harm them and no-one else such as not wearing a seatbelt or smoking pot? On the other hand, smoking cigarettes harms others and so does unlimited numbers of children per child minder.

    There is no ideological silver bullet solution to the problem of balancing personal freedom with the common good. But there are common sense pragmatic solutions. Try Amartya Sen - the Idea of Justice.
    I have no problem with good nutrition for kids - I am a strong supporter. But I don’t think it is a good use of taxpayers money to subsidise well off people.
    How about state pensions for well off people? Or pension tax credits for wealthy people.
    Given they are cutting off free meals if you earn above £7,400 it is hardly rich people they are targeting.
    A slight extension of current availability overall
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,919
    Romney seeking to develop a post-Trump GOP policy platform:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/romney-utah-campaign/553472/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,857
    I would point out that the LibDems increased their vote count by almost a third last May, and ended up only just behind the Labour Party in terms of absolute votes: it's just that, in absolute terms, the Conservatives were up more.
This discussion has been closed.