My view is that if Boris becomes PM he will gain TBP voters and win seats in large parts of non metropolitan England but excluding parts of the South. The Lid Dems are likely to decimate labour and the conservatives in London and the South West
Boris is popular in the SW. And the LibDems still have a long way to claw back voters who have returned to Labour here.
I think St Ives will fill to the Yellow Peril, almost irrespective. They might also hold/gain Totnes if Sarah Wollaston is the candidate.
Beyond those, gains look tough, unless the Brexit vote is split between Con and BXP.
The LDs, though, look set to gain back many of their wealthy metropolitan and market town seats in the South East. While I think suggestions they'd get to 60 seats are fanciful, a Boris Brexit election would likely see them get somewhere north of 25 seats, and possibly as many as 40.
Some seats like St Albans, that they've never won, look like pretty nailed-on gains.
IMHO, St. Alban's (a constituency I know very well) will flatter to deceive. They just can't turn their support at local level in St. Alban's, Watford, SW Herts, into support at Parliamentary level. And, in the case of St. Alban's and Watford, they've never been ever able to persuade Labour voters to back them tactically. The Asian voters of Watford, and the white working class voters of London Colney simply won't support them.
I think that before the Euro elections you would be correct (and given the usual caveats) but the numbers from St Albans were astonishing and arch Brexiteer Ann Main is in one of the worst seats given the present climate :
There's still quite a large rural hinterland to St. Alban's constituency, which will deliver a large and loyal Conservative vote at a general election. I'm not saying the Lib Dems can't do it, but I think it will be tough for them.
To continue, I thought St. Alban's was a nailed-on Lib Dem gain in 1997, and I still don't know why they performed so badly in a seat where they held three quarters of the council seats. Had they won it then, I'm sure they'd have held it up to 2015, as they could surely have squeezed the Labour vote.
This might be useful for our future PM Boris "Johnson" Johnson.
The EU has finally admitted that the £39bn is not "a sum that must be paid", and the payment cannot be enforced in any court. If BoJo refuses to pony up, there would be a negotiation in which the EU might yield in certain areas.
"We’re willing to go into the detail of how that sum breaks down. If a future government would not be ready or willing to pay then the problem is there’s not really a court to settle the dispute, but we do have some arguments.
“No matter who’s in charge he or she will want to ensure that [the] relationship between the UK and the EU has a future, that in terms of imports and exports, employment law, or programmes such as Galileo [satellite programme] and Erasmus Plus or the Horizon Europe [research programme] – we need to find solutions for all of those programmes.
“I don’t want to anticipate any future vote but we want to ensure that the EU can negotiate Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus; we want to have agreement with UK universities and for that, for the future of UK research, we need to settle old debts fairly."
Galileo? Really? I thought we had already been excluded from that. Intriguing.
Watching episode 3 of the Thatcher documentary which shows a brief clip of the 1984 Tory conference. On the stage behind Thatcher both the union flag and EU flags are displayed, side by side. Just imagine that now.
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
Fake news.
I don't want to punish leave voters.
I want to punish and humiliate leave voters. I want them to see their leave vote is ultimately responsible for the UK joining a USE.
A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
A USE is not going to happen now, with strong eurosceptics in government in Italy, Hungary, Poland, and, for different reasons, across the Hanseatic League.
Britain might have left EU at the very moment it begins changing into something we could tolerate.
You’re not the first PB’er to proffer that thought.
Frustratingly, I don't know that the EU would change into something Britain was more able to tolerate unless we left (or sought to leave at any rate).
Time to accept that your Leave vote has done its job and start campaigning to Remain?
I already switched to remain several months ago. Regardless of who we blame for the mess we are in we are in a great big mess, and compounding that with the most chaotic of exits makes the costs of exiting not worth it in my view. I know that makes me a weak and gutless Brexiter, but it was always a balancing act to make the decision, and the course of the last few years, and certainly so many leavers escalating their demands to the point only a no deal exit is deemed suitable for them, changed the balance.
However, we will likely be an even more bitter member of the EU moving forward and I think they will come to regret that. We cannot simply go back to the way things were, and I don't believe they have or will change really, so we can all pretend for a time things are hunky dory, but its like the period post the civil war- sure at first glance it looks like nothing was achieved, but you cannot go completely back to the way things were, and they came to ahead again, even if not all the way to destruction.
Must say The Saj underwhelmed a bit in the initial vote - does he have a shot at overhauling Hunt, Give and Raab in the race to see who can lose to Boris?
It is possible. You could imagine two things. First that Raab will get no transfers because (as the hardest Leaver) anyone who would vote for him already has done. Second that at least some of the McVey and Leadsom voters were looking for anyone who is not male, pale and stale.
Leadsom, Harper and McVey had 20 votes combined. Matt Hancock scored another 20 and is said to be considering his position.
So if Saj picks up a few and Raab stands still, then job done. Ir is possible. But is it likely?
Watching episode 3 of the Thatcher documentary which shows a brief clip of the 1984 Tory conference. On the stage behind Thatcher both the union flag and EU flags are displayed, side by side. Just imagine that now.
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
I don’t want no deal particularly, I just want the people who are trying to stop Brexit to be punished for their lies and cowardice
And you seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance because many of them are ostensibly committed Brexiteers.
Not at all. I think the ERG should have voted for the deal, but they were elected as hard brexiteers, so it wasn’t a surprise they weren’t satisfied with it. The Labour and TIG MPs were elected as Remainers who had accepted the result, but used the ERGs idealism as a shield while working to prevent us leaving at all
Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose the Tories' Brexit approach and retain the benefits of the SM/CU, so they had every justification to vote against it.
So why do we hear that they would have voted for it had the ERG done so? That has been the excuse given for them
It's my view. Take away the cover of the ERG opposing the deal ("if she can't even convince her own party...") and it makes it very difficult or at least very much more difficult for Lab to oppose. Albeit I accept that is their job.
Every time an ERGer said Mrs May's deal was worse than remaining they gave cover for others to oppose the deal.
Typical cowardly Remainers. They can't summon up the honesty or bravery to face the public openly as ideological opponents of the result of the referendum so they look for excuses instead.
"It wasn't my fault. It was those nasty boys over there."
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
I don’t want no deal particularly, I just want the people who are trying to stop Brexit to be punished for their lies and cowardice
And you seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance because many of them are ostensibly committed Brexiteers.
Not at all. I think the ERG should have voted for the deal, but they were elected as hard brexiteers, so it wasn’t a surprise they weren’t satisfied with it. The Labour and TIG MPs were elected as Remainers who had accepted the result, but used the ERGs idealism as a shield while working to prevent us leaving at all
Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose the Tories' Brexit approach and retain the benefits of the SM/CU, so they had every justification to vote against it.
So why do we hear that they would have voted for it had the ERG done so? That has been the excuse given for them
It's my view. Take away the cover of the ERG opposing the deal ("if she can't even convince her own party...") and it makes it very difficult or at least very much more difficult for Lab to oppose. Albeit I accept that is their job.
Every time an ERGer said Mrs May's deal was worse than remaining they gave cover for others to oppose the deal.
Typical cowardly Remainers. They can't summon up the honesty or bravery to face the public openly as ideological opponents of the result of the referendum so they look for excuses instead.
Yes, "Bollocks to Brexit" is a really ambiguous slogan...
This might be useful for our future PM Boris "Johnson" Johnson.
The EU has finally admitted that the £39bn is not "a sum that must be paid", and the payment cannot be enforced in any court. If BoJo refuses to pony up, there would be a negotiation in which the EU might yield in certain areas.
"We’re willing to go into the detail of how that sum breaks down. If a future government would not be ready or willing to pay then the problem is there’s not really a court to settle the dispute, but we do have some arguments.
“No matter who’s in charge he or she will want to ensure that [the] relationship between the UK and the EU has a future, that in terms of imports and exports, employment law, or programmes such as Galileo [satellite programme] and Erasmus Plus or the Horizon Europe [research programme] – we need to find solutions for all of those programmes.
“I don’t want to anticipate any future vote but we want to ensure that the EU can negotiate Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus; we want to have agreement with UK universities and for that, for the future of UK research, we need to settle old debts fairly."
Galileo? Really? I thought we had already been excluded from that. Intriguing.
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
Fake news.
I don't want to punish leave voters.
I want to punish and humiliate leave voters. I want them to see their leave vote is ultimately responsible for the UK joining a USE.
A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
A USE is not going to happen now, with strong eurosceptics in government in Italy, Hungary, Poland, and, for different reasons, across the Hanseatic League.
Britain might have left EU at the very moment it begins changing into something we could tolerate.
You’re not the first PB’er to proffer that thought.
Frustratingly, I don't know that the EU would change into something Britain was more able to tolerate unless we left (or sought to leave at any rate).
Time to accept that your Leave vote has done its job and start campaigning to Remain?
I already switched to remain several months ago. Regardless of who we blame for the mess we are in we are in a great big mess, and compounding that with the most chaotic of exits makes the costs of exiting not worth it in my view. I know that makes me a weak and gutless Brexiter, but it was always a balancing act to make the decision, and the course of the last few years, and certainly so many leavers escalating their demands to the point only a no deal exit is deemed suitable for them, changed the balance.
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
I don’t want no deal particularly, I just want the people who are trying to stop Brexit to be punished for their lies and cowardice
And you seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance because many of them are ostensibly committed Brexiteers.
Not at all. I think the ERG should have voted for the deal, but they were elected as hard brexiteers, so it wasn’t a surprise they weren’t satisfied with it. The Labour and TIG MPs were elected as Remainers who had accepted the result, but used the ERGs idealism as a shield while working to prevent us leaving at all
Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose the Tories' Brexit approach and retain the benefits of the SM/CU, so they had every justification to vote against it.
So why do we hear that they would have voted for it had the ERG done so? That has been the excuse given for them
That's only a handful of potential rebels. Labour would still have whipped against it.
So it never really was the ERGs fault. I thought as much
The Conservatives and DUP have a majority so what Labour do is irrelevant if they support the government.
I never said it was only Labour that were to blame. Grieve, TIG too
Really it’s the ERG, not only on the numbers but for having poisoned the water for their own governments deal before the ink was dry.
On the numbers it’s obviously not them is it? If they’d all voted for it, it wouldn’t have passed
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
Fake news.
I don't want to punish leave voters.
I want to punish and humiliate leave voters. I want them to see their leave vote is ultimately responsible for the UK joining a USE.
A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
A USE is not going to happen now, with strong eurosceptics in government in Italy, Hungary, Poland, and, for different reasons, across the Hanseatic League.
Britain might have left EU at the very moment it begins changing into something we could tolerate.
You’re not the first PB’er to proffer that thought.
Frustratingly, I don't know that the EU would change into something Britain was more able to tolerate unless we left (or sought to leave at any rate).
"England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example"
William Pitt the Younger, making his last ever public speech, to the Guildhall, in the City of London, 1805.
Watching episode 3 of the Thatcher documentary which shows a brief clip of the 1984 Tory conference. On the stage behind Thatcher both the union flag and EU flags are displayed, side by side. Just imagine that now.
Watching episode 3 of the Thatcher documentary which shows a brief clip of the 1984 Tory conference. On the stage behind Thatcher both the union flag and EU flags are displayed, side by side. Just imagine that now.
The Tories were motivated by fear of our own trade unions, and fear of the Warsaw Pact, to join the EU. Once those those ceased to be fears, the Tories became less and less keen on the organisation.
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
I don’t want no deal particularly, I just want the people who are trying to stop Brexit to be punished for their lies and cowardice
And you seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance because many of them are ostensibly committed Brexiteers.
Not at all. I think the ERG should have voted for the deal, but they were elected as hard brexiteers, so it wasn’t a surprise they weren’t satisfied with it. The Labour and TIG MPs were elected as Remainers who had accepted the result, but used the ERGs idealism as a shield while working to prevent us leaving at all
Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose the Tories' Brexit approach and retain the benefits of the SM/CU, so they had every justification to vote against it.
So why do we hear that they would have voted for it had the ERG done so? That has been the excuse given for them
It's my view. Take away the cover of the ERG opposing the deal ("if she can't even convince her own party...") and it makes it very difficult or at least very much more difficult for Lab to oppose. Albeit I accept that is their job.
Every time an ERGer said Mrs May's deal was worse than remaining they gave cover for others to oppose the deal.
Didn't our PM-in-waiting Boris say the very same thing?
At the least implied it. He revealed himself to be quite dumb to only realise for MV3 that May was right that it might be deal or no brexit, and still might. If he'd ccontinued opposition I'd get it, though not agree, but in the end he and others accepted however bad it was, it was still Brexit.
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
I don’t want no deal particularly, I just want the people who are trying to stop Brexit to be punished for their lies and cowardice
And you seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance because many of them are ostensibly committed Brexiteers.
Not at all. I think the ERG should have voted for the deal, but they were elected as hard brexiteers, so it wasn’t a surprise they weren’t satisfied with it. The Labour and TIG MPs were elected as Remainers who had accepted the result, but used the ERGs idealism as a shield while working to prevent us leaving at all
Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose the Tories' Brexit approach and retain the benefits of the SM/CU, so they had every justification to vote against it.
So why do we hear that they would have voted for it had the ERG done so? That has been the excuse given for them
It's my view. Take away the cover of the ERG opposing the deal ("if she can't even convince her own party...") and it makes it very difficult or at least very much more difficult for Lab to oppose. Albeit I accept that is their job.
Every time an ERGer said Mrs May's deal was worse than remaining they gave cover for others to oppose the deal.
Typical cowardly Remainers. They can't summon up the honesty or bravery to face the public openly as ideological opponents of the result of the referendum so they look for excuses instead.
Yes, "Bollocks to Brexit" is a really ambiguous slogan...
You must know that’s the Lib Dem’s, who were the only UK party with MPs elected in 2017 on not respecting the referendum result, so missing the point?
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
I don’t want no deal particularly, I just want the people who are trying to stop Brexit to be punished for their lies and cowardice
And you seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance because many of them are ostensibly committed Brexiteers.
Not at all. I think the ERG should have voted for the deal, but they were elected as hard brexiteers, so it wasn’t a surprise they weren’t satisfied with it. The Labour and TIG MPs were elected as Remainers who had accepted the result, but used the ERGs idealism as a shield while working to prevent us leaving at all
Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose the Tories' Brexit approach and retain the benefits of the SM/CU, so they had every justification to vote against it.
So why do we hear that they would have voted for it had the ERG done so? That has been the excuse given for them
That's only a handful of potential rebels. Labour would still have whipped against it.
So it never really was the ERGs fault. I thought as much
The Conservatives and DUP have a majority so what Labour do is irrelevant if they support the government.
I never said it was only Labour that were to blame. Grieve, TIG too
Really it’s the ERG, not only on the numbers but for having poisoned the water for their own governments deal before the ink was dry.
On the numbers it’s obviously not them is it? If they’d all voted for it, it wouldn’t have passed
With their friends in the DUP, it would. The tiny handful of Tory remainers were balanced off (with a difference of only one) by Labour MPs backing the deal.
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
Watching episode 3 of the Thatcher documentary which shows a brief clip of the 1984 Tory conference. On the stage behind Thatcher both the union flag and EU flags are displayed, side by side. Just imagine that now.
Yes I noticed that too. Incredible.
Yebbut that was before the Single European Act of 1986.
It would be great if we left on No Deal after the ERG had voted for a deal that the Remain and Revokers had rejected. As it always should have been.
You're falling into the same trap as rich remainers who want to see no deal to punish leave voters.
*cough* TSE *cough*
I don’t want no deal particularly, I just want the people who are trying to stop Brexit to be punished for their lies and cowardice
And you seem to be struggling with cognitive dissonance because many of them are ostensibly committed Brexiteers.
Not at all. I think the ERG should have voted for the deal, but they were elected as hard brexiteers, so it wasn’t a surprise they weren’t satisfied with it. The Labour and TIG MPs were elected as Remainers who had accepted the result, but used the ERGs idealism as a shield while working to prevent us leaving at all
Labour MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to oppose the Tories' Brexit approach and retain the benefits of the SM/CU, so they had every justification to vote against it.
So why do we hear that they would have voted for it had the ERG done so? That has been the excuse given for them
It's my view. Take away the cover of the ERG opposing the deal ("if she can't even convince her own party...") and it makes it very difficult or at least very much more difficult for Lab to oppose. Albeit I accept that is their job.
Every time an ERGer said Mrs May's deal was worse than remaining they gave cover for others to oppose the deal.
Typical cowardly Remainers. They can't summon up the honesty or bravery to face the public openly as ideological opponents of the result of the referendum so they look for excuses instead.
Yes, "Bollocks to Brexit" is a really ambiguous slogan...
One they only adopted very recently. The Lib Dems were just as ready to talk about 'respecting the result of the referendum' when it came to the 2017 election. The only ones that showed any real principles were the SNP.
Can’t see how Boris is going to be any more successful than May in resolving Brexit.
I too am in the Lib Dem camp though in London it makes no difference as my constituency is now a safe Labour seat. But in Cumbria - in the constituency next to Rory’s - it’s a marginal. So my vote counts there. And nice as Trudi Harrison is I’m not going to reward the Tories for what they are doing.
Were Rory to become leader I’d look at them again. But I’m not holding my breath. He is wonderfully old-fashioned, and I mean that as a compliment.
The Tories are doing what the financial sector did for many years: choosing the risky, the flashy, the superficial with little regard for morality or decency or trustworthiness or old-fashioned concepts such as leadership and integrity. They will end up in big trouble and, eventually, will realise that such things do matter, are indeed more important than the golden calf they have worshipped. But we will have to endure the mess first, I fear.
Didn’t the LDs just win across Camden in the Euros, save for three wards in the south?
They did. But I wouldn’t be confident of that translating across to a GE. They have lost a lot of their local councillors and Tulip Siddiq has a majority of ca. 10,000.
So you’re going to vote for Corbyn’s lot in Copeland? Who’d have thought.
Absolutely not. I will vote Lib Dem or Green.
NFW will I ever vote Labour while Corbyn/McDonnell are in charge.
Your earlier post makes no sense, then, since Copeland being marginal doesn’t mean that your vote “counts”, unless you cast it for Tory or Labour. Voting LibDem or Green in Copeland is a much bigger waste of time than voting LibDem in Camden; at least in the latter case you’ll be voting for the party that comes second, making it easier for them to pick up votes the next time around.
It means the Tories lose the seat if people like my husband no longer vote Tory. I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing.
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
This might be useful for our future PM Boris "Johnson" Johnson.
The EU has finally admitted that the £39bn is not "a sum that must be paid", and the payment cannot be enforced in any court. If BoJo refuses to pony up, there would be a negotiation in which the EU might yield in certain areas.
"We’re willing to go into the detail of how that sum breaks down. If a future government would not be ready or willing to pay then the problem is there’s not really a court to settle the dispute, but we do have some arguments.
“No matter who’s in charge he or she will want to ensure that [the] relationship between the UK and the EU has a future, that in terms of imports and exports, employment law, or programmes such as Galileo [satellite programme] and Erasmus Plus or the Horizon Europe [research programme] – we need to find solutions for all of those programmes.
“I don’t want to anticipate any future vote but we want to ensure that the EU can negotiate Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus; we want to have agreement with UK universities and for that, for the future of UK research, we need to settle old debts fairly."
Galileo? Really? I thought we had already been excluded from that. Intriguing.
A hard Brexit certainly focusses the minds.
Byronic's excerpt missed the part that said:
"A spokesman for the French government suggested last week that reneging on the divorce bill would be tantamount to default on sovereign debt, in an indication that member states would also put the rating agencies under pressure to downgrade the state of the British economy."
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
Some practising Christians have supported some very dubious people - Tony Blair, for example.
And, given practising Christians amount to about 10% of the population, I'd say that they have very little option but to support some very dubious people (in their eyes) or else abstain from voting altogether.
When Christianity was founded, its adherents prayed for some decidedly dodgy Emperors.
Can’t see how Boris is going to be any more successful than May in resolving Brexit.
I too am in the Lib Dem camp though in London it makes no difference as my constituency is now a safe Labour seat. But in Cumbria - in the constituency next to Rory’s - it’s a marginal. So my vote counts there. And nice as Trudi Harrison is I’m not going to reward the Tories for what they are doing.
Were Rory to become leader I’d look at them again. But I’m not holding my breath. He is wonderfully old-fashioned, and I mean that as a compliment.
The TorieBut we will have to endure the mess first, I fear.
Didn’t the LDs just win across Camden in the Euros, save for three wards in the south?
They did. But I wouldn’t be confident of that translating across to a GE. They have lost a lot of their local councillors and Tulip Siddiq has a majority of ca. 10,000.
So you’re going to vote for Corbyn’s lot in Copeland? Who’d have thought.
Absolutely not. I will vote Lib Dem or Green.
NFW will I ever vote Labour while Corbyn/McDonnell are in charge.
Your earlier post makes no sense, then, since Copeland being marginal doesn’t mean that your vote “counts”, unless you cast it for Tory or Labour. Voting LibDem or Green in Copeland is a much bigger waste of time than voting LibDem in Camden; at least in the latter case you’ll be voting for the party that comes second, making it easier for them to pick up votes the next time around.
It means the Tories lose the seat if people like my husband no longer vote Tory. I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing.
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
He can “not vote Tory” in Copeland just as easily by voting LibDem in London.
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
So you did something that clearly marks you as a deranged and embarrassing nutter, and he will justifiably block you.
And then you came and showed us, like a toddler proudly displaying his recently pooped pants?
One they only adopted very recently. Ghe Lib Dems wrre just ad ready to tslk about 'respecting the result of the referendum' when it came to the 2017 election. The only ones that showed any real principles were the SNP.
The Lib Dem 2017 manifesto is full of EU flags and promises a second referendum on the deal:
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
Some practising Christians have supported some very dubious people - Tony Blair, for example.
And, given practising Christians amount to about 10% of the population, I'd say that they have very little option but to support some very dubious people (in their eyes) or else abstain from voting altogether.
There have always been Pharisees, who know the words but not the Spirit.
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
Trump won the highest share of the evangelical Christian vote in the US for decades despite his sexual assault allegations and multiple divorces so if the agenda is there he will get support.
JFK got a high share of the Catholic vote despite making Boris look like the Pope in terms of his womanising and Bill Clinton also did far better in the Bible belt then the more straight laced Gore and Kerry.
One they only adopted very recently. Ghe Lib Dems wrre just ad ready to tslk about 'respecting the result of the referendum' when it came to the 2017 election. The only ones that showed any real principles were the SNP.
The Lib Dem 2017 manifesto is full of EU flags and promises a second referendum on the deal:
It means the Tories lose the seat if people like my husband no longer vote Tory. I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing.
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
This might be useful for our future PM Boris "Johnson" Johnson.
The EU has finally admitted that the £39bn is not "a sum that must be paid", and the payment cannot be enforced in any court. If BoJo refuses to pony up, there would be a negotiation in which the EU might yield in certain areas.
"We’re willing to go into the detail of how that sum breaks down. If a future government would not be ready or willing to pay then the problem is there’s not really a court to settle the dispute, but we do have some arguments.
“No matter who’s in charge he or she will want to ensure that [the] relationship between the UK and the EU has a future, that in terms of imports and exports, employment law, or programmes such as Galileo [satellite programme] and Erasmus Plus or the Horizon Europe [research programme] – we need to find solutions for all of those programmes.
“I don’t want to anticipate any future vote but we want to ensure that the EU can negotiate Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus; we want to have agreement with UK universities and for that, for the future of UK research, we need to settle old debts fairly."
Galileo? Really? I thought we had already been excluded from that. Intriguing.
A hard Brexit certainly focusses the minds.
Byronic's excerpt missed the part that said:
"A spokesman for the French government suggested last week that reneging on the divorce bill would be tantamount to default on sovereign debt, in an indication that member states would also put the rating agencies under pressure to downgrade the state of the British economy."
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
Some practising Christians have supported some very dubious people - Tony Blair, for example.
And, given practising Christians amount to about 10% of the population, I'd say that they have very little option but to support some very dubious people (in their eyes) or else abstain from voting altogether.
There have always been Pharisees, who know the words but not the Spirit.
It's more the case that if practising Christians are a relatively small minority, they are bound to support people who are either non-Christians or poor Christians, if they vote at all.
This might be useful for our future PM Boris "Johnson" Johnson.
The EU has finally admitted that the £39bn is not "a sum that must be paid", and the payment cannot be enforced in any court. If BoJo refuses to pony up, there would be a negotiation in which the EU might yield in certain areas.
"We’re willing to go into the detail of how that sum breaks down. If a future government would not be ready or willing to pay then the problem is there’s not really a court to settle the dispute, but we do have some arguments.
“No matter who’s in charge he or she will want to ensure that [the] relationship between the UK and the EU has a future, that in terms of imports and exports, employment law, or programmes such as Galileo [satellite programme] and Erasmus Plus or the Horizon Europe [research programme] – we need to find solutions for all of those programmes.
“I don’t want to anticipate any future vote but we want to ensure that the EU can negotiate Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus; we want to have agreement with UK universities and for that, for the future of UK research, we need to settle old debts fairly."
Galileo? Really? I thought we had already been excluded from that. Intriguing.
A hard Brexit certainly focusses the minds.
Byronic's excerpt missed the part that said:
"A spokesman for the French government suggested last week that reneging on the divorce bill would be tantamount to default on sovereign debt, in an indication that member states would also put the rating agencies under pressure to downgrade the state of the British economy."
But that was obviously bollocks, as European officials have since admitted. Disputing a unique, complex exit bill in a sui generis geopolitical situation, is nothing like "defaulting on sovereign debt". Nor does Paris get to decide this, either.
The French government was talking out of its derriere. It was bloviating for domestic consumption.
Of course the UK's Brexiting behaviour MIGHT impact on its credit rating, but that is a different matter - and a judgement call for Moody, Fitch, and S&P, not Monsieur Macron. If we Brexit effectively (hard, but not impossible), we might even be UPgraded.
No, you are just implying your beliefs on what the Tory Party should be ie basically a second LD Party when ignoring the fact that most of its voters are conservatives and voted for Brexit.
Brexit is not a conservative project. This is true even if a majority of Conservative allowed themselves to be taken in by it.
Indeed not. It is, rather, a revolutionary project. Most unconservative.
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
Some practising Christians have supported some very dubious people - Tony Blair, for example.
And, given practising Christians amount to about 10% of the population, I'd say that they have very little option but to support some very dubious people (in their eyes) or else abstain from voting altogether.
When Christianity was founded, its adherents prayed for some decidedly dodgy Emperors.
Some practising Christians are certainly hypocrites - Tony Blair being a good example. IDS appears to be another.
No, you are just implying your beliefs on what the Tory Party should be ie basically a second LD Party when ignoring the fact that most of its voters are conservatives and voted for Brexit.
Brexit is not a conservative project. This is true even if a majority of Conservative allowed themselves to be taken in by it.
Indeed not. It is, rather, a revolutionary project. Most unconservative.
Just sent the following tweet to IDS- 'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
Some practising Christians have supported some very dubious people - Tony Blair, for example.
And, given practising Christians amount to about 10% of the population, I'd say that they have very little option but to support some very dubious people (in their eyes) or else abstain from voting altogether.
When Christianity was founded, its adherents prayed for some decidedly dodgy Emperors.
Some practising Christians are certainly hypocrites - Tony Blair being a good example. IDS appears to be another.
Thank God you are not as other men are, eh?
Have you ever read the Autobiography of Augustus Carp?
One they only adopted very recently. Ghe Lib Dems wrre just ad ready to tslk about 'respecting the result of the referendum' when it came to the 2017 election. The only ones that showed any real principles were the SNP.
The Lib Dem 2017 manifesto is full of EU flags and promises a second referendum on the deal:
@britainelects Following Following @britainelects More Chuka Umunna MP (Streatham) has joined the Liberal Democrats.
Not a surprise, but interesting he has come on his own. Perhaps the constituency discussions in his case were less problematic than elsewhere. Perhaps there’s a strategy of rolling signups?
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
Yes, you're not supposed to register in a place where you only spend limited time. If, however, it's roughly equal (students are the classic example), you are encouraged to register in both and can then choose (but not vote in both).
Who the hell is going to do the daily spin for him now? Kellyanne, if she gets booted from her current position for being too political?
Sarah did the impossible job for more than two years, standing up every day and defending Trump, even when he was contradicting her on Twitter at the same time!
BBC news confirms Chuka Umunna has told the Times he had defected to the LDs, clearly must be a strong contender to lead the Liberals now in due course
BBC news confirms Chuka Umunna has told the Times he had defected to the LDs, clearly must be a strong contender to lead the Liberals now in due course
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
Yes, you're not supposed to register in a place where you only spend limited time. If, however, it's roughly equal (students are the classic example), you are encouraged to register in both and can then choose (but not vote in both).
Thank you, Nick, for confirming this.
Second home owners don't get to choose a la carte where they can vote.
They are expected to vote where they spend most time.
A second home owner who spends little time in a constituency but chooses to vote there because it is a marginal is actually subverting the democratic process.
This is a significant problem in some Welsh seats, e.g, Gwyr.
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
Yes, you're not supposed to register in a place where you only spend limited time. If, however, it's roughly equal (students are the classic example), you are encouraged to register in both and can then choose (but not vote in both).
Thank you, Nick, for confirming this.
Second home owners don't get to choose a la carte where they can vote.
They are expected to vote where they spend most time.
A second home owner who spends little time in a constituency but chooses to vote there because it is a marginal is actually subverting the democratic process.
This is a significant problem in some Welsh seats, e.g, Gwyr.
Strictly, you can’t choose where you register. If you are multi-registered, you do get to choose where to vote.
Not a fashionable thought: but I quite like Chukka. He is smart, able, thoughtful, and - let's face it, gay and black - so he represents an unusual demographic, and is a good role model in that way.
I hope he prospers in the Lib Dems (and we can forget the embarrassment of the CUKs). The next leader of the LDs after Swinson. Maybe the first LD PM in 100 years, in two elections' time.
Not a fashionable thought: but I quite like Chukka. He is smart, able, thoughtful, and - let's face it, gay and black - so he represents an unusual demographic, and is a good role model in that way.
I hope he prospers in the Lib Dems (and we can forget the embarrassment of the CUKs). The next leader of the LDs after Swinson. Maybe the first LD PM in 100 years, in two elections' time.
This might be useful for our future PM Boris "Johnson" Johnson.
The EU has finally admitted that the £39bn is not "a sum that must be paid", and the payment cannot be enforced in any court. If BoJo refuses to pony up, there would be a negotiation in which the EU might yield in certain areas.
"We’re willing to go into the detail of how that sum breaks down. If a future government would not be ready or willing to pay then the problem is there’s not really a court to settle the dispute, but we do have some arguments.
“No matter who’s in charge he or she will want to ensure that [the] relationship between the UK and the EU has a future, that in terms of imports and exports, employment law, or programmes such as Galileo [satellite programme] and Erasmus Plus or the Horizon Europe [research programme] – we need to find solutions for all of those programmes.
“I don’t want to anticipate any future vote but we want to ensure that the EU can negotiate Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus; we want to have agreement with UK universities and for that, for the future of UK research, we need to settle old debts fairly."
Galileo? Really? I thought we had already been excluded from that. Intriguing.
LOL, the impossible movement slowly starting to happen from the EU side. At least their statement might serve to constrain some of those in the U.K. who think that the £39bn is somehow set in stone, even though the agreement is yet to be ratified.
"You can only register to vote in your local area if you reside at an address in that area.
Whether or not you reside at an address is not defined in law. Residence is understood to mean a “considerable degree of permanence”.
This means a person with two homes who spends the same amount of time in each can legally register at both addresses.
It is unlikely that merely owning a second home that is used for recreation would be enough to qualify you to register to vote in that area. Simply paying council tax on a second home would also not be enough."
It means the Tories lose the seat if people like my husband no longer vote Tory. I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing.
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but my husband lives in Cumbria and votes there. I mostly live in London and vote here. I am not a second home owner. I own one property only: my home. When I finally move permanently to Cumbria, luck and builders permitting, I will vote there.
It means the Tories lose the seat if people like my husband no longer vote Tory. I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing.
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but my husband lives in Cumbria and votes there. I mostly live in London and vote here. I am not a second home owner. I own one property only: my home. When I finally move permanently to Cumbria, luck and builders permitting, I will vote there.
" I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing."
I am not interested in your business, but the above quote did rather puzzle me. I am glad you have clarified that you do not in fact vote in Copeland, and so whether you want to reward Trudi (or not) is irrelevant.
There are in fact serious problems in Welsh constituencies with significant numbers of second home owners voting, although not really living in the constituency.
I personally regard that as a breach of the principles of electoral law.
It means the Tories lose the seat if people like my husband no longer vote Tory. I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing.
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but my husband lives in Cumbria and votes there. I mostly live in London and vote here. I am not a second home owner. I own one property only: my home. When I finally move permanently to Cumbria, luck and builders permitting, I will vote there.
" I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing."
I am not interested in your business, but the above quote did rather puzzle me. I am glad you have clarified that you do not in fact vote in Copeland, and so whether you want to reward Trudi (or not) is irrelevant.
There are in fact serious problems in Welsh constituencies with significant numbers of second home owners voting, although not really living in the constituency.
I personally regard that as a breach of the principles of electoral law.
Students get to register in both and choose which they vote in.
It means the Tories lose the seat if people like my husband no longer vote Tory. I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing.
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
Not that it’s anyone’s business, but my husband lives in Cumbria and votes there. I mostly live in London and vote here. I am not a second home owner. I own one property only: my home. When I finally move permanently to Cumbria, luck and builders permitting, I will vote there.
" I quite like Trudi Harrison but I am not going to reward the Tories. Also, there are specific green issues in the constituency which I want highlighted and which neither the Tories or Labour are addressing."
I am not interested in your business, but the above quote did rather puzzle me. I am glad you have clarified that you do not in fact vote in Copeland, and so whether you want to reward Trudi (or not) is irrelevant.
There are in fact serious problems in Welsh constituencies with significant numbers of second home owners voting, although not really living in the constituency.
I personally regard that as a breach of the principles of electoral law.
Students get to register in both and choose which they vote in.
Yes, because they spend ~ 50 per cent of their time in both constituencies. Second home owners don't.
Comments
The EU has finally admitted that the £39bn is not "a sum that must be paid", and the payment cannot be enforced in any court. If BoJo refuses to pony up, there would be a negotiation in which the EU might yield in certain areas.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/eu-says-reneging-on-brexit-bill-would-damage-uk-economy
"We’re willing to go into the detail of how that sum breaks down. If a future government would not be ready or willing to pay then the problem is there’s not really a court to settle the dispute, but we do have some arguments.
“No matter who’s in charge he or she will want to ensure that [the] relationship between the UK and the EU has a future, that in terms of imports and exports, employment law, or programmes such as Galileo [satellite programme] and Erasmus Plus or the Horizon Europe [research programme] – we need to find solutions for all of those programmes.
“I don’t want to anticipate any future vote but we want to ensure that the EU can negotiate Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus; we want to have agreement with UK universities and for that, for the future of UK research, we need to settle old debts fairly."
Galileo? Really? I thought we had already been excluded from that. Intriguing.
However, we will likely be an even more bitter member of the EU moving forward and I think they will come to regret that. We cannot simply go back to the way things were, and I don't believe they have or will change really, so we can all pretend for a time things are hunky dory, but its like the period post the civil war- sure at first glance it looks like nothing was achieved, but you cannot go completely back to the way things were, and they came to ahead again, even if not all the way to destruction.
Leadsom, Harper and McVey had 20 votes combined. Matt Hancock scored another 20 and is said to be considering his position.
So if Saj picks up a few and Raab stands still, then job done. Ir is possible. But is it likely?
"It wasn't my fault. It was those nasty boys over there."
A hard Brexit certainly focusses the minds.
William Pitt the Younger, making his last ever public speech, to the Guildhall, in the City of London, 1805.
1984 EU <> 2019 EU
'Surprised that as a practising Christian you find it possible to support such a malign human being as Boris Johnson. Doubtless many Tory MPs would endorse Reinhard Heydrich , were they persuaded that he would save their seats'.
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/921462568186769408
In Camden the Lib Dems are now do far behind that I suspect it will take more than one election for them to catch up.
"A spokesman for the French government suggested last week that reneging on the divorce bill would be tantamount to default on sovereign debt, in an indication that member states would also put the rating agencies under pressure to downgrade the state of the British economy."
And, given practising Christians amount to about 10% of the population, I'd say that they have very little option but to support some very dubious people (in their eyes) or else abstain from voting altogether.
When Christianity was founded, its adherents prayed for some decidedly dodgy Emperors.
And then you came and showed us, like a toddler proudly displaying his recently pooped pants?
MmmmKayyy......
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5909d4366ad575794c000000/attachments/original/1495020157/Manifesto-Final.pdf?1495020157
JFK got a high share of the Catholic vote despite making Boris look like the Pope in terms of his womanising and Bill Clinton also did far better in the Bible belt then the more straight laced Gore and Kerry.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/i-have-two-homes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses
Second home owners are not meant to pick which constituency they vote in.
You can't just choose Camden or Copeland, as you please.
You are specifically required to vote in the place you reside, i.e spend most time.
"tantamount to"
"in an indication"
I'm sure they'll try.
The French government was talking out of its derriere. It was bloviating for domestic consumption.
Of course the UK's Brexiting behaviour MIGHT impact on its credit rating, but that is a different matter - and a judgement call for Moody, Fitch, and S&P, not Monsieur Macron. If we Brexit effectively (hard, but not impossible), we might even be UPgraded.
In other news, I have just put the heating on.
@britainelects
Following Following @britainelects
More
Chuka Umunna MP (Streatham) has joined the Liberal Democrats.
Greta Thunberg is on her way to complain.
is it true or just a rumour?
Nice, but not stunning. 30? 32?
Have you ever read the Autobiography of Augustus Carp?
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1139277414482284558
(only kidding!)
https://www.libdemvoice.org/breakingchuka-umunna-to-join-the-liberal-democrats-61127.html
Then Wollaston might be a good bet for Totnes. I always thought local Lib Dems would tell her to sod off with any quasi-carpet-bagging.
Sarah did the impossible job for more than two years, standing up every day and defending Trump, even when he was contradicting her on Twitter at the same time!
Second home owners don't get to choose a la carte where they can vote.
They are expected to vote where they spend most time.
A second home owner who spends little time in a constituency but chooses to vote there because it is a marginal is actually subverting the democratic process.
This is a significant problem in some Welsh seats, e.g, Gwyr.
I hope he prospers in the Lib Dems (and we can forget the embarrassment of the CUKs). The next leader of the LDs after Swinson. Maybe the first LD PM in 100 years, in two elections' time.
NEW THREAD
Even if you are multi registered, you are NOT meant to pick and choose where your vote.
If you spend most of your time in Camden, you are meant to vote in Camden.
If you spend most of your time in Copeland, you are meant to vote in Copeland.
Read the link I posted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48630374
Whether or not you reside at an address is not defined in law. Residence is understood to mean a “considerable degree of permanence”.
This means a person with two homes who spends the same amount of time in each can legally register at both addresses.
It is unlikely that merely owning a second home that is used for recreation would be enough to qualify you to register to vote in that area. Simply paying council tax on a second home would also not be enough."
I am not interested in your business, but the above quote did rather puzzle me. I am glad you have clarified that you do not in fact vote in Copeland, and so whether you want to reward Trudi (or not) is irrelevant.
There are in fact serious problems in Welsh constituencies with significant numbers of second home owners voting, although not really living in the constituency.
I personally regard that as a breach of the principles of electoral law.
Dominic Raab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS8v_9jjZcc
Greg Davies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzgTSRLtXdY