If Rory Stewart had suggested this idea his head would already be on a pike.
Ruth Davidson currently cannot even beat the Brexit Party in Scotland let alone the SNP and she should thank Boris he will get a FTA polling shows most Scots far prefer to No Deal
I cannot let that go unchallenged. Yes, recent polling does indicate that Ruth Davidson’s team is neck and neck with the Brexit Party in Scotland (usual caveats, sub-samples blah blah), but where on earth is the evidence that “polling shows most Scots far prefer to No Deal”?
No Deal got just 29% support from Scottish respondents in the latest YouGov (compared to 42% GB-wide). How does that equate with ”most Scots far prefer”? (page 14:)
1) a Canada style FTA is not the same thing as No Deal. By definition, it requires a Deal.
2) still cannot see any numbers there that support your contention that “most Scots far prefer”. By definition, “most Scots” implies a majority.
1) Indeed hence Boris will deliver a Canada style FTA for GB if the voters of NI back the backstop in a referendum. Even Barnier has said he will deliver a Canada style FTA for GB if NI keeps the backstop until a technical solution found to the Irish border
2) The poll showed a plurality in Scotland back a Canada style FTA, if you dislike the conclusions tough
Pleased to see you concede that your statement “polling shows most Scots far prefer to No Deal” was a complete fabrication. Big of you.
BoJo is a core vote strategy at best. And i have no idea why even the core vote think he's anything other than an incompetent joker. But there it is.
Tories won't be getting back to election winning vote shares until they skip a generation. Not convinced Stewart is the answer but at least he's a bit different. He can't win though given the electorate for this job.
I think you underestimate his popularity, even amongst white working class labour voters would vote for him.
Personal anecdote : My own mother in law who has always voted labour really likes Boris and would vote for him . If he can get brexit over the line he can reunite the nation and he is the only one capable of defeating the corbyn hard left Labour Party
I didn't realise until last Monday that I had never seen Boris out of costume. Previously I'd only seen him on HIGNFY or doing clownish stunts on bIcycles or in his non-job as Mayor of London. On Monday he was a serious politician and he was not only hopeless but his inarticulacy and bluster made him sound creepy and unattractive.
It's possible that if he becomes PM he'll revert back to the clown and give the heavy lifting to someone else but if he doesn't I think the country are going to be in for a surprise
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Mr. Gate, because of the UK's history (long centralised rather than the patchwork of Germany or Italy, with large regional capitals), the urban/rural divide also plays into a London-centric aspect.
Osborne's 'Northern Powerhouse' had some merit, if only in recognising that governments tend to have cash to splash for London but when it comes to elsewhere in the country there's always room to cut promised spending on rail and the like.
I agree but I think there's a deeper issue than that. I live in Newcastle upon Tyne which is much more wealthy than the surrounding towns. The same resentment that the country has about investment in London also applies on a local level to investment in the regional capital.
I'm not sure how you begin to approach the issue. I think city mayors potentially make things worse.
The 'North of Tyne' city region is interesting because it has both the City of Newcastle and the whole of Northumberland. Quite different to the other 'metro mayors'.
I doubt that Newcastle is 'much more wealthy' than Ponteland, Darras Hall and other affluent parts of Northumberland and North Tyneside.
And this suggests that regional cities tend to be less affluent than their surrounding areas:
What you tend to get in big urban areas is greater disparity of wealth and greater proximity of inequality.
Just because wealthy people live in Darras, Ponteland, etc doesn't mean anything. They work in Newcastle. They go to hospital in Newcastle. They shop in Newcastle. They socialise in Newcastle. All investment goes into Newcastle.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
Except the public in all of those votes voted for programs where they were explicitly told there would be no economic downside.
There's a mandate for a pain-free Brexit. If it turns out now that Brexit is inherently and automatically painful, that changes everything.
Sure, some people like you may enjoy the pain. You strike me as that sort of person. But others might not see things your way.
Your argument rests on the notion that everything is panning out as promised. It isn't.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
.
Except, of course, allowing people to vote democratically on the actual options before us.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
Isn't it incredible that those pinning the last vestiges of their beloved Brexit on the (flawed and narrow) 2016 vote are turning out to be, in reality, the least democratic people in the land?
If Rory Stewart had suggested this idea his head would already be on a pike.
Ruth Davidson currently cannot even beat the Brexit Party in Scotland let alone the SNP and she should thank Boris he will get a FTA polling shows most Scots far prefer to No Deal
I cannot let that go unchallenged. Yes, recent polling does indicate that Ruth Davidson’s team is neck and neck with the Brexit Party in Scotland (usual caveats, sub-samples blah blah), but where on earth is the evidence that “polling shows most Scots far prefer to No Deal”?
No Deal got just 29% support from Scottish respondents in the latest YouGov (compared to 42% GB-wide). How does that equate with ”most Scots far prefer”? (page 14:)
1) a Canada style FTA is not the same thing as No Deal. By definition, it requires a Deal.
2) still cannot see any numbers there that support your contention that “most Scots far prefer”. By definition, “most Scots” implies a majority.
1) Indeed hence Boris will deliver a Canada style FTA for GB if the voters of NI back the backstop in a referendum. Even Barnier has said he will deliver a Canada style FTA for GB if NI keeps the backstop until a technical solution found to the Irish border
2) The poll showed a plurality in Scotland back a Canada style FTA, if you dislike the conclusions tough
Pleased to see you concede that your statement “polling shows most Scots far prefer to No Deal” was a complete fabrication. Big of you.
I think he meant "an FTA which polling shows most Scots prefer over No Deal".
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
I think MPs realise that Johnson will win the members vote whatever happens so I suspect the thinking is to select the opponent who will give him the hardest scrutiny and that is Stewart,
is it really in the party interest to have blue on blue on such a scale, this isnt a general election, it is a party leader election where the candidates are supposedly batting for same team. Rory is acting more like labour/lib opposition than a conservative contender.
Somebody needs to point out the ludicrous and duplicitous nature of Johnson's Brexit position before we are landed with him as PM. As others are pointing out it is unbelievable that he is getting away with by avoiding public scrutiny.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Like many leavers, you have a very odd view of 'democracy'.
"The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery."
LOL. No, it really is not. Do you actually believe the stuff you write on here?
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Like many leavers, you have a very odd view of 'democracy'.
"The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery."
LOL. No, it really is not. Do you actually believe the stuff you write on here?
Yes I do. That is my first principle and that is why avoiding the backstop comes before ANYTHING else. I have never wavered in my vitriolic opposition to the backstop have I? I've even said I'd rather cancel Brexit than have the backstop. Nothing else matters.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Like many leavers, you have a very odd view of 'democracy'.
"The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery."
LOL. No, it really is not. Do you actually believe the stuff you write on here?
These numbers show how many Tory members have become infected with the most virulent strain of the Brexit virus.
They should worry Boris, because he is painting himself into a corner and leading people along.
Which to be fair isn't cynical of the MPs it is quite appropriate for a democracy.
Furthermore I think Boris will do far better than either May or Brown and will be a PM in the shape of Cameron who was our most successful leader of recent times. Boris I expect will delegate accordingly and not micromanage everything which is what we need from a PM.
Boris won in London in 2008 not because everyone in London suddenly became a Conservative but because he was a cheery and optimistic soul at a time of gathering gloom and anxiety. He was jovial reassurance that everything would be fine contrasted with the dour reality of Ken.
In 2012, Labour inexplicably chose Ken again - had Boris had to run against the late Tessa Jowell, it might have been a very different outcome but the fact remains Boris's greatest strength is his personal warmth, charm and his overarching optimism and positivity. That will stand in complete contrast to May and even to Cameron - whether cheery optimism is what you want from a PM I don't know but Boris does it in spades.
I agree he needs a strong team to cover the detail because that's where he is at his weakest.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
I think MPs realise that Johnson will win the members vote whatever happens so I suspect the thinking is to select the opponent who will give him the hardest scrutiny and that is Stewart,
is it really in the party interest to have blue on blue on such a scale, this isnt a general election, it is a party leader election where the candidates are supposedly batting for same team. Rory is acting more like labour/lib opposition than a conservative contender.
Somebody needs to point out the ludicrous and duplicitous nature of Johnson's Brexit position before we are landed with him as PM. As others are pointing out it is unbelievable that he is getting away with by avoiding public scrutiny.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Like many leavers, you have a very odd view of 'democracy'.
"The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery."
LOL. No, it really is not. Do you actually believe the stuff you write on here?
Yes I do. That is my first principle and that is why avoiding the backstop comes before ANYTHING else. I have never wavered in my vitriolic opposition to the backstop have I? I've even said I'd rather cancel Brexit than have the backstop. Nothing else matters.
But the people elected a government in 2017 knowing the red lines that lead inexorably to the backstop. WHY DO YOU HATE DEMOCRACY SO MUCH?
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
.
Except, of course, allowing people to vote democratically on the actual options before us.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Like many leavers, you have a very odd view of 'democracy'.
"The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery."
LOL. No, it really is not. Do you actually believe the stuff you write on here?
Yes I do. That is my first principle and that is why avoiding the backstop comes before ANYTHING else. I have never wavered in my vitriolic opposition to the backstop have I? I've even said I'd rather cancel Brexit than have the backstop. Nothing else matters.
Then with absolutely no respect:
You are a stupid fool. A one-eyed obsessive who is willing to see disaster and war befall this country because of something that has been accepted by many other Brexiteers.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
This is just idiotic.
Apart from anything else, being alone just outside one of the world's largest political and trading blocs inevitably means we'll be following many of its rules and standards. It's implicit in Brexit, however we leave.
Which to be fair isn't cynical of the MPs it is quite appropriate for a democracy.
Furthermore I think Boris will do far better than either May or Brown and will be a PM in the shape of Cameron who was our most successful leader of recent times. Boris I expect will delegate accordingly and not micromanage everything which is what we need from a PM.
Boris won in London in 2008 not because everyone in London suddenly became a Conservative but because he was a cheery and optimistic soul at a time of gathering gloom and anxiety. He was jovial reassurance that everything would be fine contrasted with the dour reality of Ken.
In 2012, Labour inexplicably chose Ken again - had Boris had to run against the late Tessa Jowell, it might have been a very different outcome but the fact remains Boris's greatest strength is his personal warmth, charm and his overarching optimism and positivity. That will stand in complete contrast to May and even to Cameron - whether cheery optimism is what you want from a PM I don't know but Boris does it in spades.
I agree he needs a strong team to cover the detail because that's where he is at his weakest.
I do want optimism from a PM and I think it is also how he delivered Brexit. While Farage is the epitome of a fearful cowering retreat Brexit, Boris presented an opimistic Brexit. Optimism I view as quite important actually.
Mr. Gate, because of the UK's history (long centralised rather than the patchwork of Germany or Italy, with large regional capitals), the urban/rural divide also plays into a London-centric aspect.
Osborne's 'Northern Powerhouse' had some merit, if only in recognising that governments tend to have cash to splash for London but when it comes to elsewhere in the country there's always room to cut promised spending on rail and the like.
I agree but I think there's a deeper issue than that. I live in Newcastle upon Tyne which is much more wealthy than the surrounding towns. The same resentment that the country has about investment in London also applies on a local level to investment in the regional capital.
I'm not sure how you begin to approach the issue. I think city mayors potentially make things worse.
The 'North of Tyne' city region is interesting because it has both the City of Newcastle and the whole of Northumberland. Quite different to the other 'metro mayors'.
I doubt that Newcastle is 'much more wealthy' than Ponteland, Darras Hall and other affluent parts of Northumberland and North Tyneside.
And this suggests that regional cities tend to be less affluent than their surrounding areas:
What you tend to get in big urban areas is greater disparity of wealth and greater proximity of inequality.
Just because wealthy people live in Darras, Ponteland, etc doesn't mean anything. They work in Newcastle. They go to hospital in Newcastle. They shop in Newcastle. They socialise in Newcastle. All investment goes into Newcastle.
Thinking that where people live doesn't mean anything is a new way of looking at things ?
But is there no construction boom between Newcastle and Berwick ?
There's certainly one in the equivalent areas in Yorkshire - perhaps it will reach the North-East in a year or two.
Still it might be interesting to compare the proportionate sizes of a city, its surrounding conurbation and the surrounding industrial / rural / commuter belt.
I suspect that Newcastle / Tyneside might be more population concentrated than the equivalent areas in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
.
Except, of course, allowing people to vote democratically on the actual options before us.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
You said you would be perfectly happy to see the troubles return to Northern Ireland if it meant doing away with the backstop.
You are a dangerous obsessive who has, frankly, lost his marbles on this.
Which to be fair isn't cynical of the MPs it is quite appropriate for a democracy.
Furthermore I think Boris will do far better than either May or Brown and will be a PM in the shape of Cameron who was our most successful leader of recent times. Boris I expect will delegate accordingly and not micromanage everything which is what we need from a PM.
Boris won in London in 2008 not because everyone in London suddenly became a Conservative but because he was a cheery and optimistic soul at a time of gathering gloom and anxiety. He was jovial reassurance that everything would be fine contrasted with the dour reality of Ken.
In 2012, Labour inexplicably chose Ken again - had Boris had to run against the late Tessa Jowell, it might have been a very different outcome but the fact remains Boris's greatest strength is his personal warmth, charm and his overarching optimism and positivity. That will stand in complete contrast to May and even to Cameron - whether cheery optimism is what you want from a PM I don't know but Boris does it in spades.
I agree he needs a strong team to cover the detail because that's where he is at his weakest.
Serious question: do people in London have different tastes from the rest of the country. Brexiters tell me daily that London is not the UK, yet they also seem fond of pointing to Boris's track record in London.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The key issue, and this really is for Leavers, is how to reconcile a close subsidiary relationship to the EU with the idea of "taking control", which was the main motivation for voting Leave. May never addressed that issue, which is why her deal hasn't gone anywhere, but frankly no Leaver has either.
I don't agree that this has not been addressed. There is the world of difference between bilateral arrangements with the EU that we can choose to withdraw from at any time the electorate are so minded and an overarching, ever growing superior system of law which overules our laws, our Parliament and our own wishes. One is a consequence of a nation state living in the real world and the other is something less than statehood.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The key issue, and this really is for Leavers, is how to reconcile a close subsidiary relationship to the EU with the idea of "taking control", which was the main motivation for voting Leave. May never addressed that issue, which is why her deal hasn't gone anywhere, but frankly no Leaver has either.
I don't agree that this has not been addressed. There is the world of difference between bilateral arrangements with the EU that we can choose to withdraw from at any time the electorate are so minded and an overarching, ever growing superior system of law which overules our laws, our Parliament and our own wishes. One is a consequence of a nation state living in the real world and the other is something less than statehood.
Being outside the EU will not allow us to cherry pick bits of the future relationship. Just look at Switzerland's recent experience.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Aĺl seems bizarre to me. Stewart has surely the least chance with members, yet somehow he is getting the anti-Boris vote.
I think MPs realise that Johnson will win the members vote whatever happens so I suspect the thinking is to select the opponent who will give him the hardest scrutiny and that is Stewart,
is it really in the party interest to have blue on blue on such a scale, this isnt a general election, it is a party leader election where the candidates are supposedly batting for same team. Rory is acting more like labour/lib opposition than a conservative contender.
Somebody needs to point out the ludicrous and duplicitous nature of Johnson's Brexit position before we are landed with him as PM. As others are pointing out it is unbelievable that he is getting away with by avoiding public scrutiny.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
.
Except, of course, allowing people to vote democratically on the actual options before us.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
We don't believe you. You've told us your priorities are elsewhere. You've disgraced yourself.
Apart from anything else, being alone just outside one of the world's largest political and trading blocs inevitably means we'll be following many of its rules and standards. It's implicit in Brexit, however we leave.
It means companies that trade will follow many of those rules voluntarily in order to do so (as they do with US trade too) but domestically we are free to elect our own politicians.
Would you abdicate in perpetuity with no way to exit our law setting powers over vast swathes of the economy to Trump and the USA if it means slightly more growth? I wouldn't.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
.
Except, of course, allowing people to vote democratically on the actual options before us.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
We don't believe you. You've told us your priorities are elsewhere. You've disgraced yourself.
Thinking that where people live doesn't mean anything is a new way of looking at things ?
But is there no construction boom between Newcastle and Berwick ?
There's certainly one in the equivalent areas in Yorkshire - perhaps it will reach the North-East in a year or two.
Still it might be interesting to compare the proportionate sizes of a city, its surrounding conurbation and the surrounding industrial / rural / commuter belt.
I suspect that Newcastle / Tyneside might be more population concentrated than the equivalent areas in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands.
My whole argument is about investment in local areas. Plenty of very wealthy people who work and benefit from investment in London live in Essex, Surrey, Kent, etc. Same in the North East.
There's thousands of homes being built in North Tyneside, Newcastle, Cramlington etc, yes but in terms of infrastructure, the construction boom is really in Newcastle City Centre only. Offices, technology centres, high-end residential skyscrapers, new sport facilities, new bars and restaurants...
And that's my point. The London resentment happens on a small scale too, between outlying towns and regional capitals. How do you solve that?
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The key issue, and this really is for Leavers, is how to reconcile a close subsidiary relationship to the EU with the idea of "taking control", which was the main motivation for voting Leave. May never addressed that issue, which is why her deal hasn't gone anywhere, but frankly no Leaver has either.
I don't agree that this has not been addressed. There is the world of difference between bilateral arrangements with the EU that we can choose to withdraw from at any time the electorate are so minded and an overarching, ever growing superior system of law which overules our laws, our Parliament and our own wishes. One is a consequence of a nation state living in the real world and the other is something less than statehood.
So can we have a list of these critical issues that we have historically been overruled on please.
I envision a triumphant speech where he comes back from Brussels saying he has managed to get rid of the terrible Withdrawal Agreement and instead has negotiated the best deal ever, the Agreement of Withdrawal.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
.
Except, of course, allowing people to vote democratically on the actual options before us.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
You said you would be perfectly happy to see the troubles return to Northern Ireland if it meant doing away with the backstop.
You are a dangerous obsessive who has, frankly, lost his marbles on this.
That's a lie. I never used the word happy.
I said I wouldn't surrender our democracy to avoid the risk of some potential troubles. Where do you draw the line? If Islamists said they would start Troubles if we don't implement Saudi Sharia law and ban women from driving etc would that be OK for you? Would you value avoiding violence more than our human rights there?
I envision a triumphant speech where he comes back from Brussels saying he has managed to get rid of the terrible Withdrawal Agreement and instead has negotiated the best deal ever, the Agreement of Withdrawal.
Will he be talking to anyone in Brussels? As I understand it, there's no point.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
You said you would be perfectly happy to see the troubles return to Northern Ireland if it meant doing away with the backstop.
You are a dangerous obsessive who has, frankly, lost his marbles on this.
I could understand Philip's reasoning if we'd voted to leave some horrific dictatorship like Slovenia/Croatia attempting to leave Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. But the EU is a souped up trading bloc and it has a legally defined exit route. It's hardly proportional to countenance such a risk of terrorism just for a trading bloc that isn't doing anything to actively keep us in and which fundamentally regrets that we've chosen to leave but accepts it can't do anything about it.
I envision a triumphant speech where he comes back from Brussels saying he has managed to get rid of the terrible Withdrawal Agreement and instead has negotiated the best deal ever, the Agreement of Withdrawal.
Yep, do a Constitution to Lisbon Treaty trick on the ERG.
Would you abdicate in perpetuity with no way to exit our law setting powers over vast swathes of the economy to Trump and the USA if it means slightly more growth? I wouldn't.
Oh dear oh dear... do you think that's the situation with the UK in the EU? First of all, we participate in the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament. We make legislation and we've been instrumental in shaping the direction of the EU since its inception. You might as well pretend Surrey has no role in setting English legislation, therefore it should secede. Pure nonsense.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
.
Except, of course, allowing people to vote democratically on the actual options before us.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
You said you would be perfectly happy to see the troubles return to Northern Ireland if it meant doing away with the backstop.
You are a dangerous obsessive who has, frankly, lost his marbles on this.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
You said you would be perfectly happy to see the troubles return to Northern Ireland if it meant doing away with the backstop.
You are a dangerous obsessive who has, frankly, lost his marbles on this.
I could understand Philip's reasoning if we'd voted to leave some horrific dictatorship like Slovenia/Croatia attempting to leave Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. But the EU is a souped up trading bloc and it has a legally defined exit route. It's hardly proportional to countenance such a risk of terrorism just for a trading bloc that isn't doing anything to actively keep us in and which fundamentally regrets that we've chosen to leave but accepts it can't do anything about it.
In the minds of europhobic Brexiteer winnets, the EU is an horrific dictatorship who are preventing us from leaving by not giving us everything we want.
Thinking that where people live doesn't mean anything is a new way of looking at things ?
But is there no construction boom between Newcastle and Berwick ?
There's certainly one in the equivalent areas in Yorkshire - perhaps it will reach the North-East in a year or two.
Still it might be interesting to compare the proportionate sizes of a city, its surrounding conurbation and the surrounding industrial / rural / commuter belt.
I suspect that Newcastle / Tyneside might be more population concentrated than the equivalent areas in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands.
My whole argument is about investment in local areas. Plenty of very wealthy people who work and benefit from investment in London live in Essex, Surrey, Kent, etc. Same in the North East.
There's thousands of homes being built in North Tyneside, Newcastle, Cramlington etc, yes but in terms of infrastructure, the construction boom is really in Newcastle City Centre only. Offices, technology centres, high-end residential skyscrapers, new sport facilities, new bars and restaurants...
And that's my point. The London resentment happens on a small scale too, between outlying towns and regional capitals. How do you solve that?
There's always been a concentration of construction in the big cities and you can trace that back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
I'm not sure people resent that as long as they receive the infrastructure investment which helps them also in local schools and other public services and transport routes which are useful to them.
That's a vicious lie. Please apologise, or it says more about you than me.
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
You said you would be perfectly happy to see the troubles return to Northern Ireland if it meant doing away with the backstop.
You are a dangerous obsessive who has, frankly, lost his marbles on this.
I could understand Philip's reasoning if we'd voted to leave some horrific dictatorship like Slovenia/Croatia attempting to leave Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. But the EU is a souped up trading bloc and it has a legally defined exit route. It's hardly proportional to countenance such a risk of terrorism just for a trading bloc that isn't doing anything to actively keep us in and which fundamentally regrets that we've chosen to leave but accepts it can't do anything about it.
In the minds of europhobic Brexiteer winnets, the EU is an horrific dictatorship who are preventing us from leaving by not giving us everything we want.
I envision a triumphant speech where he comes back from Brussels saying he has managed to get rid of the terrible Withdrawal Agreement and instead has negotiated the best deal ever, the Agreement of Withdrawal.
A Boris premiership is already heading to a total disaster and Cons are walking straight into it with eyes wide open. Truly bonkers.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
In the last two UK-wide elections voters have rejected No Deal. What are your views on that democratic expression of the people’s will?
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
I can understand the emotion behind this: Nigel is like a Harley-Davidson and leather jacket to these safe old middle-class duffers. He seems to offer so much fun. Under him they could throw off the shackles of moderation and responsibility, say and do what the hell they like and, for the first time in their lives, no one - not nannies, not parents, not schoolmasters, not bosses, not golf-club captains - can tell them how to behave.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
I can understand the emotion behind this: Nigel is like a Harley-Davidson and leather jacket to these safe old middle-class duffers. He seems to offer so much fun. Under him they could throw off the shackles of moderation and responsibility, say and do what the hell they like and, for the first time in their lives, no one - not nannies, not parents, not schoolmasters, not bosses, not golf-club captains - can tell them how to behave.
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
Yep, the Conservative and Unionist Party might as well change its name to the English Nationalist Party. They would destroy everything in order to inflict economic catastrophe on a country they used to pretend to care about. They are unhinged.
You say economic catastrophe but that is your projection. To protect and save the country we must implement Brexit. L'etat c'est Brexit
The country at no fewer than three national elections now have seen the country take steps to endorse Brexit. Five if you count the last 2 European Elections.
2015 the electorate voted to elect a government that would hold a Brexit referendum. 2016 the electorate voted for Brexit in that referendum. 2017 the electorate voted for MPs pledging to honour that referendum.
Having democracy is more important than economic inconvenience.
The attitude to NI that you espoused yesterday shows that you're not interested in protecting or saving the country. You're willing to see it be consumed in hatred and flame.
In order to prevent a cessation of democracy I would pay any price.
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
Like many leavers, you have a very odd view of 'democracy'.
"The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery."
LOL. No, it really is not. Do you actually believe the stuff you write on here?
Yes I do. That is my first principle and that is why avoiding the backstop comes before ANYTHING else. I have never wavered in my vitriolic opposition to the backstop have I? I've even said I'd rather cancel Brexit than have the backstop. Nothing else matters.
Two thirds of Northern Ireland's electorate want it.
I could throw it back the other way: the Brexiteers are the ones who are being undemocratic, by denying another referendum once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable.
In GE terms: imagine that the 2010 GE had ended with the Conservatives having 10 or 20 less seats, with those seats being split between the other parties. No coalition would have proved particularly workable or desirable.
In that situation, the result of the democratic election would have proved to be undeliverable. Would you really say another GE to try to sort the mess out would be undemocratic?
After three years, the referendum result seems to be undeliverable. This is mostly down to the lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and partly down to hard leavers and remainers failing to compromise. But the idea that the referendum result has been ignored is bonkers.
(Note: I am not in favour of another referendum for other reasons. But I don't think one would be undemocratic.)
Turns out Corbyn is the only thing keeping Tory members awake at night. Otherwise the "Conservative and Unionist" party is perfectly OK with the other destruction of the economy, the United Kingdom and their own party in the pursuit of their project
I can understand the emotion behind this: Nigel is like a Harley-Davidson and leather jacket to these safe old middle-class duffers. He seems to offer so much fun. Under him they could throw off the shackles of moderation and responsibility, say and do what the hell they like and, for the first time in their lives, no one - not nannies, not parents, not schoolmasters, not bosses, not golf-club captains - can tell them how to behave.
I am mad as hell, and I aint gonna take it anymore!
... The point was “no deal” does not mean “no deal ever”. It really just means no transition. ..
That is exactly why it is so completely lunatic. We get 100% of the upfront disaster, and then after an indeterminate period of chaos and huge damage to business, we'll then have to attempt from a very weak position to scrabble back some of the lost ground. To do that we'll be back to what May's deal would have set up in an orderly fashion.
Why don't we save time: Forget Boris, put Farage in charge of Tories and then organize the massive split of half the party's MPs into the LibDems or new Progressive Conservatives or whatever.
Thinking that where people live doesn't mean anything is a new way of looking at things ?
But is there no construction boom between Newcastle and Berwick ?
There's certainly one in the equivalent areas in Yorkshire - perhaps it will reach the North-East in a year or two.
Still it might be interesting to compare the proportionate sizes of a city, its surrounding conurbation and the surrounding industrial / rural / commuter belt.
I suspect that Newcastle / Tyneside might be more population concentrated than the equivalent areas in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands.
My whole argument is about investment in local areas. Plenty of very wealthy people who work and benefit from investment in London live in Essex, Surrey, Kent, etc. Same in the North East.
There's thousands of homes being built in North Tyneside, Newcastle, Cramlington etc, yes but in terms of infrastructure, the construction boom is really in Newcastle City Centre only. Offices, technology centres, high-end residential skyscrapers, new sport facilities, new bars and restaurants...
And that's my point. The London resentment happens on a small scale too, between outlying towns and regional capitals. How do you solve that?
There's always been a concentration of construction in the big cities and you can trace that back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
I'm not sure people resent that as long as they receive the infrastructure investment which helps them also in local schools and other public services and transport routes which are useful to them.
I appreciate that, but isn't the problem for those who live in towns that are too far away from these 'regional capitals' to really benefit? Where the transport links, compared to Greater London, are god awful? Where the wages are pathetic, and jobs poor.
For example, where I live in Newcastle, a 3 bedroom semi will go for around 200k. Less than 15 miles away the same house might cost half as much.
I could throw it back the other way: the Brexiteers are the ones who are being undemocratic, by denying another referendum once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable.
In GE terms: imagine that the 2010 GE had ended with the Conservatives having 10 or 20 less seats, with those seats being split between the other parties. No coalition would have proved particularly workable or desirable.
In that situation, the result of the democratic election would have proved to be undeliverable. Would you really say another GE to try to sort the mess out would be undemocratic?
After three years, the referendum result seems to be undeliverable. This is mostly down to the lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and partly down to hard leavers and remainers failing to compromise. But the idea that the referendum result has been ignored is bonkers.
(Note: I am not in favour of another referendum for other reasons. But I don't think one would be undemocratic.)
"once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable"
Mays deal proved it was deliverable. She was elected PM of our country and agreed a deal to leave with the EU. What made it undeliverable was giving a Remain majority parliament the casting vote. Had the MPs not got a vote, after saying the final say was the public's, we would have left uncontroversially years ago
Why don't we save time: Forget Boris, put Farage in charge of Tories and then organize the massive split of half the party's MPs into the LibDems or new Progressive Conservatives or whatever.
Because each side is worried that the wrong side would win. Far easier to hang together and say nasty things about Jezza.
Actually it's a theory that is currently untested. I don't think anyone including Labour MPs know the views of the people who vote for them. It's highly likely that the vocal No-Deal constituents are Brexit voters but only an election will reveal the actual truth..
Why don't we save time: Forget Boris, put Farage in charge of Tories and then organize the massive split of half the party's MPs into the LibDems or new Progressive Conservatives or whatever.
If Rod Stewart gets the gig, its quite possible we will have PM Farage
Two thirds of Northern Ireland's electorate want it.
So democracy means that we should pay attention to them. But democracy also means respecting the will of the UK people. And there's a conflict there. Which means... democracy doesn't respect democracy.
Of course, all this would just go away if we discovered that... the people of the UK have actually changed their minds... So a democratic vote could realign democracy with democracy. But, according to Phil "H-Block" Thompson, that wouldn't be democratic.
Mr. Jessop, but if the result is undeliverable why have a second referendum at all (as people might then vote for something that cannot be delivered)? Why not just revoke?
Actually it's a theory that is currently untested. I don't think anyone including Labour MPs know the views of the people who vote for them. It's highly likely that the vocal No-Deal constituents are Brexit voters but only an election will reveal the actual truth..
I think one could say with some confidence that 95%+ of people who voted Labour in Hornsey & Wood Green or Bristol West in 2017 opposed Brexit.
OTOH, I would not be surprised if a majority of 2017 Labour voters in places like Bolsover or Rother Valley supported Brexit.
Overall, the polling is clear. Most people who voted Labour in 2017 opposed Brexit, but the proportions will vary considerably by constituency.
I could throw it back the other way: the Brexiteers are the ones who are being undemocratic, by denying another referendum once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable.
In GE terms: imagine that the 2010 GE had ended with the Conservatives having 10 or 20 less seats, with those seats being split between the other parties. No coalition would have proved particularly workable or desirable.
In that situation, the result of the democratic election would have proved to be undeliverable. Would you really say another GE to try to sort the mess out would be undemocratic?
After three years, the referendum result seems to be undeliverable. This is mostly down to the lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and partly down to hard leavers and remainers failing to compromise. But the idea that the referendum result has been ignored is bonkers.
(Note: I am not in favour of another referendum for other reasons. But I don't think one would be undemocratic.)
"once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable"
Mays deal proved it was deliverable. She was elected PM of our country and agreed a deal to leave with the EU. What made it undeliverable was giving a Remain majority parliament the casting vote. Had the MPs not got a vote, after saying the final say was the public's, we would have left uncontroversially years ago
Too many MPs - including many Brexiteers who argued for the referendum in the first place - are against it. It is therefore undeliverable. I'd have a little more time for your argument if the Brexiteers (both within and without parliament) were on board with May's deal. But many are not. It's clear that they don't think her deal is Brexit as was promised.
Two thirds of Northern Ireland's electorate want it.
So democracy means that we should pay attention to them. But democracy also means respecting the will of the UK people. And there's a conflict there. Which means... democracy doesn't respect democracy.
Of course, all this would just go away if we discovered that... the people of the UK have actually changed their minds... So a democratic vote could realign democracy with democracy. But, according to Phil "H-Block" Thompson, that wouldn't be democratic.
Democracy has always involved ignoring the views of large numbers of people. For example about 90% of voters were in favour of capital punishment when it was first abolished in 1965. 56% didn't vote for Labour in 1997 when Tony Blair won a 179 seat majority. 57% didn't vote for the Conservatives in 1983.
Mr. Jessop, but if the result is undeliverable why have a second referendum at all (as people might then vote for something that cannot be delivered)? Why not just revoke?
Because leave would have to come up with a firm position, and not the everything-to-all-men shite they came up with last time. If that position is 'No Brexit', and that wins, fair enough. If it's May's deal, and that wins, fair enough.
But as I said, I'm not for one, mainly because I can't see how to fairly run one. It's up to the political class to sort out the mess.
Actually it's a theory that is currently untested. I don't think anyone including Labour MPs know the views of the people who vote for them. It's highly likely that the vocal No-Deal constituents are Brexit voters but only an election will reveal the actual truth..
I think one could say with some confidence that 95%+ of people who voted Labour in Hornsey & Wood Green or Bristol West in 2017 opposed Brexit.
OTOH, I would not be surprised if a majority of 2017 Labour voters in places like Bolsover or Rother Valley supported Brexit.
Overall, the polling is clear. Most people who voted Labour in 2017 opposed Brexit, but the numbers will vary considerably by constituency.
And it's the Northern Constituencies that matter here. For Labour it's essential to know the impact Revoke or a second referendum policy will have in what was historically Labour's core vote...
I could throw it back the other way: the Brexiteers are the ones who are being undemocratic, by denying another referendum once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable.
In GE terms: imagine that the 2010 GE had ended with the Conservatives having 10 or 20 less seats, with those seats being split between the other parties. No coalition would have proved particularly workable or desirable.
In that situation, the result of the democratic election would have proved to be undeliverable. Would you really say another GE to try to sort the mess out would be undemocratic?
After three years, the referendum result seems to be undeliverable. This is mostly down to the lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and partly down to hard leavers and remainers failing to compromise. But the idea that the referendum result has been ignored is bonkers.
(Note: I am not in favour of another referendum for other reasons. But I don't think one would be undemocratic.)
"once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable"
Mays deal proved it was deliverable. She was elected PM of our country and agreed a deal to leave with the EU. What made it undeliverable was giving a Remain majority parliament the casting vote. Had the MPs not got a vote, after saying the final say was the public's, we would have left uncontroversially years ago
Too many MPs - including many Brexiteers who argued for the referendum in the first place - are against it. It is therefore undeliverable. I'd have a little more time for your argument if the Brexiteers (both within and without parliament) were on board with May's deal. But many are not. It's clear that they don't think her deal is Brexit as was promised.
So a few weeks ago Boris Bros were desperate to have four finalists going to the membership for a vote. Now their gelatinous hero is gaming the same system to favour him.
I said I wouldn't surrender our democracy to avoid the risk of some potential troubles. Where do you draw the line? If Islamists said they would start Troubles if we don't implement Saudi Sharia law and ban women from driving etc would that be OK for you? Would you value avoiding violence more than our human rights there?
Philip, hats off for taking such an unpopular position on here, but I am intrigued by it and would like to ask you a question - a serious one.
You clearly see the Brexit process as something akin to a war of liberation which we are fighting against an over-mighty and malign foreign oppressor.
Now that does not come from some dry and dusty analysis of how EU membership has impacted the UK. It is visceral. It is something you FEEL and feel strongly. You feel interfered with by the EU as you go about your daily business. Therefore you are utterly uncompromising on the need to get out, come hell or high water. Fair enough. If I felt that way, so would I be.
Anyway, my question -
WHY do you feel so hostile to the European Union? Where is it coming from? Is it, like with Michael Gove, because of something that occurred in childhood?
Any chance that Boris lends Hunt supporters to keep him in the race ?
Very risky because how do you make sure too many people don't do it?
When you are sitting on a lead as large as Boris's, that is not too much of a worry. He'd still not come last even if he lent fully half his voters, which is far beyond what is required.
Andrea Leadsom has come out for Boris. This is all so reminiscent of when Theresa May was the Messiah
That is a good point. In addition, there was a period, not long before the 2017 election, when Theresa May was getting lots of support from Labour voters. Anyone who thinks the popularity of Boris, such as it is, would survive more than a few weeks is living in la-la land.
I could throw it back the other way: the Brexiteers are the ones who are being undemocratic, by denying another referendum once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable.
In GE terms: imagine that the 2010 GE had ended with the Conservatives having 10 or 20 less seats, with those seats being split between the other parties. No coalition would have proved particularly workable or desirable.
In that situation, the result of the democratic election would have proved to be undeliverable. Would you really say another GE to try to sort the mess out would be undemocratic?
After three years, the referendum result seems to be undeliverable. This is mostly down to the lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and partly down to hard leavers and remainers failing to compromise. But the idea that the referendum result has been ignored is bonkers.
(Note: I am not in favour of another referendum for other reasons. But I don't think one would be undemocratic.)
"once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable"
Mays deal proved it was deliverable. She was elected PM of our country and agreed a deal to leave with the EU. What made it undeliverable was giving a Remain majority parliament the casting vote. Had the MPs not got a vote, after saying the final say was the public's, we would have left uncontroversially years ago
Too many MPs - including many Brexiteers who argued for the referendum in the first place - are against it. It is therefore undeliverable. I'd have a little more time for your argument if the Brexiteers (both within and without parliament) were on board with May's deal. But many are not. It's clear that they don't think her deal is Brexit as was promised.
"Had the MPs not got a vote,"
Ah, a leaver denying democracy.
MP's getting a vote denied democracy. The demos are the people not the gilded elite.
Comments
It's possible that if he becomes PM he'll revert back to the clown and give the heavy lifting to someone else but if he doesn't I think the country are going to be in for a surprise
The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery. In perpetuity the NI electorate will be bound to follow laws and regulations they have no representatives to have a say in passing. That is undemocratic and there is no excuse under any circumstances to justify that.
Do I want hatred and flames? No of course not! Is it worth sacrificing liberties to avoid? No.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1140905281913872384
There's a mandate for a pain-free Brexit. If it turns out now that Brexit is inherently and automatically painful, that changes everything.
Sure, some people like you may enjoy the pain. You strike me as that sort of person. But others might not see things your way.
Your argument rests on the notion that everything is panning out as promised. It isn't.
I would at this point pile a heap of invective your way as I think you have shown yourself to be the lowest of the low. Suffice to say that your comments about wishing the troubles to return to Northern Ireland are utterly despicable.
The irony.
"The backstop is an abomination in my eyes. It is like slavery."
LOL. No, it really is not. Do you actually believe the stuff you write on here?
Brexit wont happen - wont happen - wont happen -wont happen...
Lay Boris - Boris - Boris - Boris...
Second referendum - referendum -referendum -referendum...
They should worry Boris, because he is painting himself into a corner and leading people along.
In 2012, Labour inexplicably chose Ken again - had Boris had to run against the late Tessa Jowell, it might have been a very different outcome but the fact remains Boris's greatest strength is his personal warmth, charm and his overarching optimism and positivity. That will stand in complete contrast to May and even to Cameron - whether cheery optimism is what you want from a PM I don't know but Boris does it in spades.
I agree he needs a strong team to cover the detail because that's where he is at his weakest.
WHY DO YOU HATE DEMOCRACY SO MUCH?
I specifically and repeatedly say I don't want Troubles in NI.
You are a stupid fool. A one-eyed obsessive who is willing to see disaster and war befall this country because of something that has been accepted by many other Brexiteers.
Apart from anything else, being alone just outside one of the world's largest political and trading blocs inevitably means we'll be following many of its rules and standards. It's implicit in Brexit, however we leave.
But is there no construction boom between Newcastle and Berwick ?
There's certainly one in the equivalent areas in Yorkshire - perhaps it will reach the North-East in a year or two.
Still it might be interesting to compare the proportionate sizes of a city, its surrounding conurbation and the surrounding industrial / rural / commuter belt.
I suspect that Newcastle / Tyneside might be more population concentrated than the equivalent areas in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands.
You are a dangerous obsessive who has, frankly, lost his marbles on this.
Well, which is it? Sommes-nous tous Londoniens?
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1140885362350407681?s=21
Would you abdicate in perpetuity with no way to exit our law setting powers over vast swathes of the economy to Trump and the USA if it means slightly more growth? I wouldn't.
There's thousands of homes being built in North Tyneside, Newcastle, Cramlington etc, yes but in terms of infrastructure, the construction boom is really in Newcastle City Centre only. Offices, technology centres, high-end residential skyscrapers, new sport facilities, new bars and restaurants...
And that's my point. The London resentment happens on a small scale too, between outlying towns and regional capitals. How do you solve that?
Latest figures, (Wikipedia / Guido):
Johnson 102 / 100
Hunt 42 / 34
Gove 36 / 34
Raab 25 / 25
Javid 21 / 21
Stewart 14 / 14
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
I said I wouldn't surrender our democracy to avoid the risk of some potential troubles. Where do you draw the line? If Islamists said they would start Troubles if we don't implement Saudi Sharia law and ban women from driving etc would that be OK for you? Would you value avoiding violence more than our human rights there?
England 1.04 to win against Afghanistan.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.159349837
First of all, we participate in the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament. We make legislation and we've been instrumental in shaping the direction of the EU since its inception.
You might as well pretend Surrey has no role in setting English legislation, therefore it should secede. Pure nonsense.
Just gobsmacking, frankly.
Including Calais.
I'm not sure people resent that as long as they receive the infrastructure investment which helps them also in local schools and other public services and transport routes which are useful to them.
Not exactly a high bar.
Of course he may not even get that far.
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1140869965056270336
I could throw it back the other way: the Brexiteers are the ones who are being undemocratic, by denying another referendum once the results of the previous one have proved to be undeliverable.
In GE terms: imagine that the 2010 GE had ended with the Conservatives having 10 or 20 less seats, with those seats being split between the other parties. No coalition would have proved particularly workable or desirable.
In that situation, the result of the democratic election would have proved to be undeliverable. Would you really say another GE to try to sort the mess out would be undemocratic?
After three years, the referendum result seems to be undeliverable. This is mostly down to the lie at the heart of the leave campaigns, and partly down to hard leavers and remainers failing to compromise. But the idea that the referendum result has been ignored is bonkers.
(Note: I am not in favour of another referendum for other reasons. But I don't think one would be undemocratic.)
For example, where I live in Newcastle, a 3 bedroom semi will go for around 200k. Less than 15 miles away the same house might cost half as much.
Mays deal proved it was deliverable. She was elected PM of our country and agreed a deal to leave with the EU. What made it undeliverable was giving a Remain majority parliament the casting vote. Had the MPs not got a vote, after saying the final say was the public's, we would have left uncontroversially years ago
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/rory-stewart-is-active-mi6-agent-infiltrating-extreme-right-wing-organisation-20190618186714
But democracy also means respecting the will of the UK people.
And there's a conflict there.
Which means... democracy doesn't respect democracy.
Of course, all this would just go away if we discovered that... the people of the UK have actually changed their minds...
So a democratic vote could realign democracy with democracy. But, according to Phil "H-Block" Thompson, that wouldn't be democratic.
OTOH, I would not be surprised if a majority of 2017 Labour voters in places like Bolsover or Rother Valley supported Brexit.
Overall, the polling is clear. Most people who voted Labour in 2017 opposed Brexit, but the proportions will vary considerably by constituency.
"Had the MPs not got a vote,"
Ah, a leaver denying democracy.
But as I said, I'm not for one, mainly because I can't see how to fairly run one. It's up to the political class to sort out the mess.
Leave 48%
Remain 52%
Now their gelatinous hero is gaming the same system to favour him.
It's all a game to them, isn't it?
You clearly see the Brexit process as something akin to a war of liberation which we are fighting against an over-mighty and malign foreign oppressor.
Now that does not come from some dry and dusty analysis of how EU membership has impacted the UK. It is visceral. It is something you FEEL and feel strongly. You feel interfered with by the EU as you go about your daily business. Therefore you are utterly uncompromising on the need to get out, come hell or high water. Fair enough. If I felt that way, so would I be.
Anyway, my question -
WHY do you feel so hostile to the European Union? Where is it coming from? Is it, like with Michael Gove, because of something that occurred in childhood?