Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Founder of ConHome, Tim Montgomerie, quits the Tories over

SystemSystem Posts: 11,682
edited February 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Founder of ConHome, Tim Montgomerie, quits the Tories over Cameron’s EU stance

The political blogging pioneer and former chief of staff to IDS, Tim Montgomerie, announced overnight that he was quitting the party over Cameron’s stance on the EU. This clearly was a carefully timed announcement designed to have an impact.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    First!
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    edited February 2016
    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...



  • Options

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...



    tho clearly the Donald has some interesting memories that others witnessing the same events don't have
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    FPT
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    A huge FBI investigation involving 150 agents is an irrelevance? This is a use of the term irrelevance with which I am not familiar. This is potentially an existential threat to her campaign.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...



    tho clearly the Donald has some interesting memories that others witnessing the same events don't have
    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,
  • Options
    Tim_B said:


    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,

    I agree, I added the footnote as I thought it looked like I thought that Clinton was a fantasist (among other things) and the Donald wasn't.

    It's hard to find anyone on either side who looks like they're suitable for high office. Kasich? Only cause I don't know anything about him I suspect
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited February 2016

    Tim_B said:


    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,

    I agree, I added the footnote as I thought it looked like I thought that Clinton was a fantasist (among other things) and the Donald wasn't.

    It's hard to find anyone on either side who looks like they're suitable for high office. Kasich? Only cause I don't know anything about him I suspect
    Kasich is definitely suitable for high office. Google him and check his experience.

    I don't think most folks in the UK realize how much potential trouble she is in.

    Not to mention the HUGE misjudgment she made in having a home brewed server holding classified information.

    If she has poor judgment like that, what does it say about how fit she is to be POTUS?
  • Options
    A party that can house Dan Hannan and John Redwood can house Tim Montgomerie.

    Montie leaving the Tories says more about Montie than it does about the Tories. He has never gotten over IDS being a failure and David Davis losing. It is personal to him not political.
  • Options

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...
    The FBI are taking their sweet time in deciding whether to indict or not. I understand they have a lot to go through but to leave this hanging indefinitely in an election year just doesn't seem appropriate to me.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...
    The FBI are taking their sweet time in deciding whether to indict or not. I understand they have a lot to go through but to leave this hanging indefinitely in an election year just doesn't seem appropriate to me.
    The FBI are a thoroughly professional non-political organization. They will take the time they need to complete their investigation, double check everything, then make sure the case is bullet proof and watertight before proceeding. They will not be rushed and yes they operate in a vacuum.

    They are not influenced by anyone, are beholden to no one, which is what you want in an investigative body.

    Obviously they are aware of the political nature of the subject of their digging, and the political effect of their recommendation, which means they will be even more thorough.
  • Options

    A party that can house Dan Hannan and John Redwood can house Tim Montgomerie.

    Montie leaving the Tories says more about Montie than it does about the Tories. He has never gotten over IDS being a failure and David Davis losing. It is personal to him not political.

    Man U fan from Hampshire.
  • Options
    Tom Holland

    @RupertMyers Dan Hodges left Labour because they'd gone extreme. @montie seems to be leaving the Tories because they've gone all centrist.
  • Options
    Tim_B said:



    They are not influenced by anyone, are beholden to no one, which is what you want in an investigative body.

    If only this was also true of the supreme court
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897

    A party that can house Dan Hannan and John Redwood can house Tim Montgomerie.

    Montie leaving the Tories says more about Montie than it does about the Tories. He has never gotten over IDS being a failure and David Davis losing. It is personal to him not political.

    Yes, the party is a broad church and if it's just Montie that resigns it's clearly about him as much as the party. My worry is that others will follow his lead, whether previously friendly journos or former politicians. Another current PM resigning or defecting would be a nightmare. The PM wants to be talking about the EU and his deal, not about splits in his own party.
  • Options
    Ask your other halves who aren't political saddos, who Tim Montgomerie is?

    I think we know the answer to that.

    I expect Montie will now be critical of Dave instead of the cheerleader for Dave he is now?

    As my now favourite Tory MP put it

    https://twitter.com/GutoBebb/status/700091062040338432
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Tim_B said:



    They are not influenced by anyone, are beholden to no one, which is what you want in an investigative body.

    If only this was also true of the supreme court
    It was true of Scalia.
  • Options
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:



    They are not influenced by anyone, are beholden to no one, which is what you want in an investigative body.

    If only this was also true of the supreme court
    It was true of Scalia.
    Yeah, I was thinking of the process of appointing them, rather than the individuals themselves
  • Options
    Day O'Connor Says Obama Should Get To Replace Justice Scalia
    "Let's get on with it," the retired Reagan appointee said.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia_us_56c5313be4b0c3c55053c6d9?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&section=politics
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    How long has this thread been here? Been refreshing the old one like a total loser :(
  • Options

    A party that can house Dan Hannan and John Redwood can house Tim Montgomerie.

    Montie leaving the Tories says more about Montie than it does about the Tories. He has never gotten over IDS being a failure and David Davis losing. It is personal to him not political.

    Agree - it's not even as if he'd waited for the final package to be announced- going before says "this is about me and that twice elected PM failure Cameron."
  • Options
    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...



    tho clearly the Donald has some interesting memories that others witnessing the same events don't have
    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,
    You're right - Donald has never been anywhere near National Security or Classified information - it's not a valid comparison.....
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited February 2016

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:



    They are not influenced by anyone, are beholden to no one, which is what you want in an investigative body.

    If only this was also true of the supreme court
    It was true of Scalia.
    Yeah, I was thinking of the process of appointing them, rather than the individuals themselves
    The appointment process is thoroughly political unfortunately.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    RobD said:

    How long has this thread been here? Been refreshing the old one like a total loser :(

    I assume that by 'the old one' you mean the last thread and not something else? :lol:
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    Tim_B said:

    RobD said:

    How long has this thread been here? Been refreshing the old one like a total loser :(

    I assume that by 'the old one' you mean the last thread and not something else? :lol:
    LOL, oh you :p
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...



    tho clearly the Donald has some interesting memories that others witnessing the same events don't have
    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,
    You're right - Donald has never been anywhere near National Security or Classified information - it's not a valid comparison.....
    Actually he probably has......
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    Sandpit said:
    The more it goes on, the mode disappointed I am in with the outcome of the whole thing. Cam should just throw in the towel and campaign for leave :D
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:
    The more it goes on, the mode disappointed I am in with the outcome of the whole thing. Cam should just throw in the towel and campaign for leave :D
    I voted to stay in 1975, but if I was there now I'd vote for leave. The EU of today doesn't remotely resemble the EEC the UK signed up for.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:
    The more it goes on, the mode disappointed I am in with the outcome of the whole thing. Cam should just throw in the towel and campaign for leave :D
    Agree completely.

    The PM has a reputation for being on the winning side, which Leave would be if he campaigned for it. He would also find it easier to unite his party after a Leave result than a close Remain, and not have to bother with the charade of a good deal he is going to have to try and sell to his MPs in the next few days.

    Not going to happen though, is it?
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited February 2016

    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...



    tho clearly the Donald has some interesting memories that others witnessing the same events don't have
    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,
    You're right - Donald has never been anywhere near National Security or Classified information - it's not a valid comparison.....
    Voters will give a damn even if Hillary escapes indictment but Jake Sullivan or Huma Abedin go down, as seems ever more likely with each additional revelation.

    But it will all be moot if this keeps up:

    Quinnipiac National Democratic race: Clinton 44, Sanders 42
  • Options
    Tim_B said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:
    The more it goes on, the mode disappointed I am in with the outcome of the whole thing. Cam should just throw in the towel and campaign for leave :D
    I voted to stay in 1975, but if I was there now I'd vote for leave. The EU of today doesn't remotely resemble the EEC the UK signed up for.
    No it doesn't because of treaty changes (mainly signed up by Thatcher and Major) that were ratified by our Parliament as is our constitution.

    Future changes would require a referendum though so that can't happen again this time.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    MTimT said:

    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    I guess it will become highly relevant if she is indicted.

    But she is a seriously flawed candidate and maybe that means the Donald will be unleashed on the world. Mercy me.

    For all their faults neither Dave nor the Donald have (as far as I know) misremembered a nice helicopter ride as being under enemy fire...



    tho clearly the Donald has some interesting memories that others witnessing the same events don't have
    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,
    You're right - Donald has never been anywhere near National Security or Classified information - it's not a valid comparison.....
    Voters will give a damn even if Hillary escapes indictment but Jake Sullivan or Huma Abedin go down, as seems ever more likely with each additional revelation.

    But it will all be moot if this keeps up:

    Quinnipiac National Democratic race: Clinton 44, Sanders 42
    They are statistically tied in Nevada too.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Tim_B said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:
    The more it goes on, the mode disappointed I am in with the outcome of the whole thing. Cam should just throw in the towel and campaign for leave :D
    I voted to stay in 1975, but if I was there now I'd vote for leave. The EU of today doesn't remotely resemble the EEC the UK signed up for.
    No it doesn't because of treaty changes (mainly signed up by Thatcher and Major) that were ratified by our Parliament as is our constitution.

    Future changes would require a referendum though so that can't happen again this time.
    This would be the referendum that we held when we opted into all the justice changes like the European Arrest Warrant ? The Referendum-lock law was carefully crafted to not be triggered any when that actual matters.. any powers given away as the result of an accession treaty for example are not included, so expect to see a LOT of changes the next time some tin pot country joins the EU.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2016
    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/02/the-eu-renegotiation-how-the-rhetoric-measures-up-to-the-reality.html

    Seems like even the watered down flim-flam is overselling the reality. No one at all believes the legally binding bit now except Messrs Cameron and Nabavi ;)

    Seems the the "red card" is only going to ask the Commission to reconsider, so even if you manage to get 16 countries to support you in the 8 week deadline, the Commission can say it has reconsidered and then proceed with their plan anyway - worthless.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited February 2016
    FPT

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Fresh and serious news this evening on the Clinton email scandal.

    Remember the 22 emails that were too highly classified to be released in any form?

    We now know that one of them concerned an Afghan National on the CIA payroll. The person was named in the email. Putting an asset at risk is an absolute no-no.

    It's hard to see the FBI not recommend an indictment after this revelation - what do the other 21 emails contain?

    Plus the public corruption part of the investigation gathers pace.

    Sanders is the least of her worries.

    This feels a bit like "Dave shops at Morrisons" or "Dave on a horse" - for those who care (a tiny fraction ) serious - for the vast majority an irrelevance
    A huge FBI investigation involving 150 agents is an irrelevance? This is a use of the term irrelevance with which I am not familiar. This is potentially an existential threat to her campaign.
    Do voters see it that way?
    I don't get the relevance of your question.

    This is a LEGAL threat, and what the voters think is utterly irrelevant. This isn't a political issue.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    When someone throws their toys out of the pram you play the man - especially when his raison d'etre is 'I hate Cameron'.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    BTW your reference to 'Cameroon' looks a tad like playing the man to me. Must be catching :)
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,121
    I've never met Tim Montgomery. I'd observe that he has appeared rather semi-detached from the best interests of the Conservative Party for quite some while. (I idly wonder if a "former chief of staff to IDS" could ever be anything but semi-detached from the best interests of the Conservative Party?). But the shambles of the renegotiation seems a reasonable peg upon which to hang his departure. I can see how he has reached his decision, disappointing though it may be to see him reach his decision to go.

    The result of the Referendum is not something that is going to blow over. Either outcome will lead to a sizeable number reflecting on whether they really want to hang around in the party. It's not like there is anywhere else to go at the moment, politically. But I could see quite a few prominent names deciding that their interest in politics has waned to the point where they would rather spend their time breeding a new variety of sweet pea, or searching out a remaining Tasmanian Tiger. Disappearing out of public life in an air of disappointment...



  • Options
    How the Grauniad covers Montie's departure:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/conservative-activist-quits-party-over-david-camerons-stance-on-eu

    I wonder when (if) the press will pick up on Charles explosive story from yesterday - hard to imagine a more hostile response from the EU to Brexit - 'leave if you want, but we'll try to break up your state'......
  • Options
    BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    Impact schmimpact.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    I've never met Tim Montgomery. I'd observe that he has appeared rather semi-detached from the best interests of the Conservative Party for quite some while. (I idly wonder if a "former chief of staff to IDS" could ever be anything but semi-detached from the best interests of the Conservative Party?). But the shambles of the renegotiation seems a reasonable peg upon which to hang his departure. I can see how he has reached his decision, disappointing though it may be to see him reach his decision to go.

    The result of the Referendum is not something that is going to blow over. Either outcome will lead to a sizeable number reflecting on whether they really want to hang around in the party. It's not like there is anywhere else to go at the moment, politically. But I could see quite a few prominent names deciding that their interest in politics has waned to the point where they would rather spend their time breeding a new variety of sweet pea, or searching out a remaining Tasmanian Tiger. Disappearing out of public life in an air of disappointment...



    With the centre right of Labour also on gardening leave, we might be in for a spectacular floral display this year.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897

    How the Grauniad covers Montie's departure:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/conservative-activist-quits-party-over-david-camerons-stance-on-eu

    I wonder when (if) the press will pick up on Charles explosive story from yesterday - hard to imagine a more hostile response from the EU to Brexit - 'leave if you want, but we'll try to break up your state'......

    I imagine the press have made a note of that and are keeping it back for the short campaign, when it will have much more impact.

    Messrs Hannan and Carswell will certainly have made a note of it.

    As has been said on here numerous times, both sides need to lock away their more excitable members for the next six months, every time some of them open their mouths they send votes to their opponents. There's some recent evidence that Farage is starting to get this, but I fear will struggle to keep the Godfrey Blooms in check. Keeping the Europeans quiet will be much more challenging.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    A party that can house Dan Hannan and John Redwood can house Tim Montgomerie.

    Montie leaving the Tories says more about Montie than it does about the Tories. He has never gotten over IDS being a failure and David Davis losing. It is personal to him not political.

    Yes, the party is a broad church and if it's just Montie that resigns it's clearly about him as much as the party. My worry is that others will follow his lead, whether previously friendly journos or former politicians. Another current PM resigning or defecting would be a nightmare. The PM wants to be talking about the EU and his deal, not about splits in his own party.
    That is my worry.
  • Options
    He's symptomatic of a bigger problem for the Conservative party, being part of a cohort who believe that the EU referendum is far more important than anything else that has happened in the last 100 years. That cohort isn't going to stop disrupting the Conservative party whether Remain wins by 1% or 35%.
  • Options
    FPT - I agree with Richard Nabavi's point about Tim Montgomeries article on gay marriage. Very convincing.

    Once again, the 'problem' was not so much the policy, but the attitude of those very close to the party leadership who saw it as a useful stick to beat the voluntary party with to demonstrate modernisation to others, rather than trying to sell it to loyal party workers.

    You'd never have got Margaret Thatcher doing that.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    In the most-famous-Tory-not-an-MP stakes I think he loses to Michael Ashcroft or "that lord bloke with all the money" as he is more commonly known.
  • Options
    felix said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    BTW your reference to 'Cameroon' looks a tad like playing the man to me. Must be catching :)
    OP can look after him or herself but Cameroon surely means a follower of Cameron rather than the Prime Minister himself, as in: the Blairites are Cameroons and the Cameroons are Blairites.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sandpit said:

    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.

    The problem there is that while the other EU states (imo) have an interest in offering a deal that will fly with British voters it is no concern of theirs whether it also splits the Conservative Party.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    I think that whatever the explanation for Montie's success, it is not his political acumen.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Wanderer said:

    In the most-famous-Tory-not-an-MP stakes I think he loses to Michael Ashcroft or "that lord bloke with all the money" as he is more commonly known.

    Doesn't Ashcroft still own Conservativehome?

    First the Oakshott book, then this attack on Dave. What a coincidence!
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Wanderer said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.

    The problem there is that while the other EU states (imo) have an interest in offering a deal that will fly with British voters it is no concern of theirs whether it also splits the Conservative Party.
    I remember being told a month or two back on here that the Tories would manage this referendum without acrimony.

    If we had an effective LOTO then they would make mincemeat of the shambles in the government. Instead both parties are committing seppukku.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2016
    SeanT said:

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    FFS.

    So the "Emergency Brake" now needs to be approved by EUParl before we can use it.

    The "Red Card" needs to be approved by 16 member states within 8 weeks, and then is only advisory and can be ignored by the Commission

    The "Child Benefit" change only applies to new claimants, and is (unworkably) supposed to pay an amount indexed to the value in the country the child live in.

    And whole damn thing is subject to approval, modification, or rejection by EUParl AFTER we get a vote.

    .. and none of it is legally binding anyway.

    What a disgrace... Chamberlain would have been embarrassed by an agreement this flimsy.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    Yes, though I'm reminded of a comment from one pundit at conference who, comparing the Conservative modernisation project (then in opposition) with New Labour at a similar stage, said that New Labour had seen Blair, Brown and others mingling with delegates and preparing the party for government, whereas the Conservatives had a dozen or so people preparing for government and desperately hoping the party wouldn't screw it up for them.

    Perhaps this is a symptom -- that on a whole range of issues, the leadership has not attempted to carry the party. (Of course, it could be said Tony Blair was the same once inside Number Ten but look how that turned out.)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,294
    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    The tactic of losing votes to the right to gain more votes in the centre produced a majority in 2015. With Labour wandering about on the far lefty fringes it looks very likely to be successful again in 2020.

    I can fully understand why those who voted for IDS and thought that was actually a good place for the party to be are disappointed about all this but when the party actually was in that place it got absolutely hammered because a very small proportion of the UK public agreed with them.

    The Conservative party remains willing to be the broad church but if those who are more interested in ideological purity than winning and providing competent government insist on leaving I think the party can cope.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,942
    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
  • Options

    Wanderer said:

    In the most-famous-Tory-not-an-MP stakes I think he loses to Michael Ashcroft or "that lord bloke with all the money" as he is more commonly known.

    Doesn't Ashcroft still own Conservativehome?

    First the Oakshott book, then this attack on Dave. What a coincidence!
    He has commented on twitter:

    @LordAshcroft

    @montie @thetimes respect
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2016
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    The tactic of losing votes to the right to gain more votes in the centre produced a majority in 2015. With Labour wandering about on the far lefty fringes it looks very likely to be successful again in 2020.

    I can fully understand why those who voted for IDS and thought that was actually a good place for the party to be are disappointed about all this but when the party actually was in that place it got absolutely hammered because a very small proportion of the UK public agreed with them.

    The Conservative party remains willing to be the broad church but if those who are more interested in ideological purity than winning and providing competent government insist on leaving I think the party can cope.
    Sort of.

    I don't recall Mrs Thatcher being in the centre ground of British Politics, but she won rather more elections and rather more convincingly that Dave has. The trick is to move to the centre and keep your wing on board. Thatcher picked up aspirational working class voters and kept the Tory right on board. Blair picked up centrist and LDs voters and (mostly) kept the left onboard. Problem these days is there are other places to go, including, as Blair found, staying at home because you think no one at Westminster represents you.

    With the number of pissed off, or at least disenchanted Centre Right voters, Labour don't need to replace Corbyn with anyone that fantastic, they need someone that is reassuring and not a security risk (Jarvis), that won't force Right-wingers to turn out in alarm, and win due to apathy on the right.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    edited February 2016
    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    :+1:

    Come on Dave, this is what we elected you for. Walk away from the table, get the first plane back to London this morning and tell the Cabinet you're recommending we leave.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    SeanT said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    That's the FT's interpretation. It says this is "very tricky" for Cameron. Well, yes.
    Anyone would think that his EU "partners" are pissed off with him and us, and trying to finish him, and get us to leave.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,335
    Tim_B said:



    I don't think most folks in the UK realize how much potential trouble she is in.

    Not to mention the HUGE misjudgment she made in having a home brewed server holding classified information.

    If she has poor judgment like that, what does it say about how fit she is to be POTUS?

    I think you underestimate hom many corners people at the top cut - not unlike most people, but the expectation that they become more careful when given senior positions is often mistaken. Clinton thinking he could get away with committing adultery in the White House is an obvious example; over here, to give a closer parallel, we've had a senior Minister throwing confidential papers into a waste bin in a park. I think there's an element of luck in whose slips get spotted.

    Voters generally apply a crude consequences check, which isn't especially fair - has anyone died? Have enemy spies gained vital documents? If apparently not, then oh well.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,942
    SeanT said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    That's the FT's interpretation. It says this is "very tricky" for Cameron. Well, yes.
    Not even just about principles now, but also simply good politics. If he supports this he won't be PM by the time of the referendum. Maybe not even by the end of February.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,294
    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    The Matt cartoon linked to down thread is absolutely spot on. Cameron will reject this deal tomorrow and there will be another conference in a couple of weeks time at which things will "improve". The cabinet will be held in check for another couple of weeks as well.

    The problem is this farce is not really selling. People will either vote Remain or Leave on their assessment of where the EU is and where it is going. No one paying even the slightest bit of attention believes that these renegotiations are material to that assessment anymore . No one. Remain supporters from the other parties were frankly embarrassed about it on Peter Allan's program yesterday. They are very keen to move on and make their case for EU membership as it is.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,942
    Oh, and on topic, Montie's leaving the party will likely increase Tory vote share. I'm not entirely kidding - if it can be painted as IDS loyalist and right wing Tory thinks the party is too moderate.

    That said, the danger of several defections or submission of vote of no confidence to the '22 is now very, very high.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    The tactic of losing votes to the right to gain more votes in the centre produced a majority in 2015. With Labour wandering about on the far lefty fringes it looks very likely to be successful again in 2020.

    I can fully understand why those who voted for IDS and thought that was actually a good place for the party to be are disappointed about all this but when the party actually was in that place it got absolutely hammered because a very small proportion of the UK public agreed with them.

    The Conservative party remains willing to be the broad church but if those who are more interested in ideological purity than winning and providing competent government insist on leaving I think the party can cope.
    The party was not hammered under IDS. It actually did better than the polls suggested (and maybe we'd all be rich now if we'd paid more heed to that). Where IDS got hammered was in the House of Commons every week at PMQs which is why MPs lost faith and deposed him.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 2016

    FPT - I agree with Richard Nabavi's point about Tim Montgomeries article on gay marriage. Very convincing.

    Once again, the 'problem' was not so much the policy, but the attitude of those very close to the party leadership who saw it as a useful stick to beat the voluntary party with to demonstrate modernisation to others, rather than trying to sell it to loyal party workers.

    You'd never have got Margaret Thatcher doing that.

    Nah, they were the very same party workers who were laughing along with thatcher when she was mocking queer kids in '87.

    There's no possible argument that could have been made to get them to buy into gay marriage. It's like trying to convert a catholic priest.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    The tactic of losing votes to the right to gain more votes in the centre produced a majority in 2015. With Labour wandering about on the far lefty fringes it looks very likely to be successful again in 2020.

    I can fully understand why those who voted for IDS and thought that was actually a good place for the party to be are disappointed about all this but when the party actually was in that place it got absolutely hammered because a very small proportion of the UK public agreed with them.

    The Conservative party remains willing to be the broad church but if those who are more interested in ideological purity than winning and providing competent government insist on leaving I think the party can cope.
    Myth. One of the fastest believed myths in history.

    I explained why on the last thread.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,942

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    The tactic of losing votes to the right to gain more votes in the centre produced a majority in 2015. With Labour wandering about on the far lefty fringes it looks very likely to be successful again in 2020.

    I can fully understand why those who voted for IDS and thought that was actually a good place for the party to be are disappointed about all this but when the party actually was in that place it got absolutely hammered because a very small proportion of the UK public agreed with them.

    The Conservative party remains willing to be the broad church but if those who are more interested in ideological purity than winning and providing competent government insist on leaving I think the party can cope.
    The party was not hammered under IDS. It actually did better than the polls suggested (and maybe we'd all be rich now if we'd paid more heed to that). Where IDS got hammered was in the House of Commons every week at PMQs which is why MPs lost faith and deposed him.
    Ids was not leader during a general. The local election wins he had were entirely in line with an incumbent govt losing support - or rather failing to get out its vote.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    edited February 2016

    Wanderer said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.

    The problem there is that while the other EU states (imo) have an interest in offering a deal that will fly with British voters it is no concern of theirs whether it also splits the Conservative Party.
    I remember being told a month or two back on here that the Tories would manage this referendum without acrimony.

    If we had an effective LOTO then they would make mincemeat of the shambles in the government. Instead both parties are committing seppukku.
    To be fair, those comments were before the PM came back with a blank piece of paper and tried to sell it as the Mona Lisa.

    I still think it's not inconceivable that if the gagging/threatening of the Cabinet continues past Friday, there will quickly be close to enough letters with the 1922 Chairman to challenge Cameron's leadership. The Parliamentary and the wider party expected the leadership to take their side, but also expected a fair contest. In their view what's happening now isn't fair at all.

    Agree 100% about the Opposition of course. Shambles doesn't come close to it.
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    SeanT said:

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    FFS.

    So the "Emergency Brake" now needs to be approved by EUParl before we can use it.

    The "Red Card" needs to be approved by 16 member states within 8 weeks, and then is only advisory and can be ignored by the Commission

    The "Child Benefit" change only applies to new claimants, and is (unworkably) supposed to pay an amount indexed to the value in the country the child live in.

    And whole damn thing is subject to approval, modification, or rejection by EUParl AFTER we get a vote.

    .. and none of it is legally binding anyway.

    What a disgrace... Chamberlain would have been embarrassed by an agreement this flimsy.
    Despite having worsened, I suspect it will still be convincing enough for Boris.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited February 2016
    I'm not paying attention to this spat - US far more important :)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,294

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Indigo said:

    felix said:

    I thought he was now in the US. Could it be he's about as successful over the pond as he was over here?

    I see all the Cameroon cheerleaders are desperate to play the man and not the ball, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    On the radio he was complaining that people like him have been replaced by "people who used to vote Lib Dem".

    My reaction: how the heck did his get to the level of Chief of State without realising that's exactly how the Tory Party works & why it has been so successful?

    The Conservative Party is the vampire squid of UK politics.
    The tactic of losing votes to the right to gain more votes in the centre produced a majority in 2015. With Labour wandering about on the far lefty fringes it looks very likely to be successful again in 2020.

    I can fully understand why those who voted for IDS and thought that was actually a good place for the party to be are disappointed about all this but when the party actually was in that place it got absolutely hammered because a very small proportion of the UK public agreed with them.

    The Conservative party remains willing to be the broad church but if those who are more interested in ideological purity than winning and providing competent government insist on leaving I think the party can cope.
    The party was not hammered under IDS. It actually did better than the polls suggested (and maybe we'd all be rich now if we'd paid more heed to that). Where IDS got hammered was in the House of Commons every week at PMQs which is why MPs lost faith and deposed him.
    The Tories lost the 2005 election after Montie and his boss had been kicked out of office by nearly 900K votes and 62 Lib Dem MPs were elected such was the vast void between them and the centre. Compare that to 2015.

    There is as little appetite for a radical right wing party in this country as there is for Corbyn and his loons to the left. Montie and others may not like that but it is the truth. He might be happier in America. The loon quotient seems higher there.
  • Options
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:


    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,

    I agree, I added the footnote as I thought it looked like I thought that Clinton was a fantasist (among other things) and the Donald wasn't.

    It's hard to find anyone on either side who looks like they're suitable for high office. Kasich? Only cause I don't know anything about him I suspect
    Kasich is definitely suitable for high office. Google him and check his experience.

    I don't think most folks in the UK realize how much potential trouble she is in.

    Not to mention the HUGE misjudgment she made in having a home brewed server holding classified information.

    If she has poor judgment like that, what does it say about how fit she is to be POTUS?
    Over here, Michael Gove bypassed government servers for email. Over there, so did George W Bush. Scandalous perhaps but surely most of those scandalised were never going to vote for her in the first place.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Pulpstar said:

    Hoax lol

    Eh?

    That's a joke, right?!
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    That's the FT's interpretation. It says this is "very tricky" for Cameron. Well, yes.
    The language on the non-Euro protections is even worst than the second draft. It now says in no uncertain terms "the singke rulebook is to be applied to all financial institutions and credit institutions". This means not just UK banks come under Eurozone control, but also asset managers, mutual funds and hedge funds.

    In addition it also removes any description of differences within the rulebook for non-Euro states. So its gone from different rules, to different application of the same rules, to the same rules. So the ECB decides how it will be done and the Bank of England will have to follow suit. This is a complete disaster. Cameron will have sold out control of the entire UK finance sector if he signs this deal. And whats worse is that he hasn't even got a full proof non-discrimination protection as it can still happen for "objective reasons". And we have to "facilitate" Eurozone integration without raising more objections.

    The French have won hook line and sinker if this goes through.
  • Options

    Wanderer said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.

    The problem there is that while the other EU states (imo) have an interest in offering a deal that will fly with British voters it is no concern of theirs whether it also splits the Conservative Party.
    I remember being told a month or two back on here that the Tories would manage this referendum without acrimony.

    If we had an effective LOTO then they would make mincemeat of the shambles in the government. Instead both parties are committing seppukku.
    The idea that the Conservative party wasn't going to be riven by the referendum was always a fantasy.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Hoax lol

    Eh?

    That's a joke, right?!
    Yep ;p
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sandpit said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.

    The problem there is that while the other EU states (imo) have an interest in offering a deal that will fly with British voters it is no concern of theirs whether it also splits the Conservative Party.
    I remember being told a month or two back on here that the Tories would manage this referendum without acrimony.

    If we had an effective LOTO then they would make mincemeat of the shambles in the government. Instead both parties are committing seppukku.
    To be fair, those comments were before the PM came back with a blank piece of paper and tried to sell it as the Mona Lisa.

    I still think it's not inconceivable that if the gagging/threatening of the Cabinet continues past Friday, there will quickly be close to enough letters with the 1922 Chairman to challenge Cameron's leadership. The Parliamentary and the wider party expected the leadership to take their side, but also expected a fair contest. In their view what's happening now isn't fair at all.

    Agree 100% about the Opposition of course. Shambles doesn't come close to it.
    It's going to be incomprehensible to the rest of the population if the Conservatives have a leadership change at this point. May not stop them of course.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,294

    SeanT said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    That's the FT's interpretation. It says this is "very tricky" for Cameron. Well, yes.
    The language on the non-Euro protections is even worst than the second draft. It now says in no uncertain terms "the singke rulebook is to be applied to all financial institutions and credit institutions". This means not just UK banks come under Eurozone control, but also asset managers, mutual funds and hedge funds.

    In addition it also removes any description of differences within the rulebook for non-Euro states. So its gone from different rules, to different application of the same rules, to the same rules. So the ECB decides how it will be done and the Bank of England will have to follow suit. This is a complete disaster. Cameron will have sold out control of the entire UK finance sector if he signs this deal. And whats worse is that he hasn't even got a full proof non-discrimination protection as it can still happen for "objective reasons". And we have to "facilitate" Eurozone integration without raising more objections.

    The French have won hook line and sinker if this goes through.
    The rule book for financial services in the Single market will be Mifid II. This will apply inside and outside the EZ. I think you are getting confused about what is supposedly being negotiated here. Given Cameron's antics this is hardly your fault.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    Here's the annotated document, incase it hasn't already been linked below.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714671-FINAL-DRAFT-st00016-en16.html
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:


    Donald's memories don't involve breaking laws on national security and classified data. It's not a valid comparison.

    She is in serious legal jeopardy involving felonies. You really don't want the FBI investigating your emails and the Clinton Foundation,

    I agree, I added the footnote as I thought it looked like I thought that Clinton was a fantasist (among other things) and the Donald wasn't.

    It's hard to find anyone on either side who looks like they're suitable for high office. Kasich? Only cause I don't know anything about him I suspect
    Kasich is definitely suitable for high office. Google him and check his experience.

    I don't think most folks in the UK realize how much potential trouble she is in.

    Not to mention the HUGE misjudgment she made in having a home brewed server holding classified information.

    If she has poor judgment like that, what does it say about how fit she is to be POTUS?
    Over here, Michael Gove bypassed government servers for email. Over there, so did George W Bush. Scandalous perhaps but surely most of those scandalised were never going to vote for her in the first place.
    Gove did that after almost every email he sent through the government servers ended up in the hands of a certain Mr Balls. He quite rightly didn't trust his civil servants so kept political conversations to personal email addresses. Not following protocol certainly, but not a hanging offence given that he was in Education.

    If he had been in the Foreign Office, Home Office or Defence, and was routinely sending classified stuff off grid, that would be very, very different.

    I still don't see how Hilary's reputation comes out of this close to intact, although my experience is in administering mail servers more than running for President!
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,335
    It's almost certainly true that it's only FPTP which is now preventing the appearance of two more parties - a "true right" Tory party and a "social democrat mark II" centre-left party. The awful fate of the SDP is still putting everyone off, but the reality, reflected in every country with proportional systems, is that there is space for at least four distinct, well-developed political positions: traditionalist/nationalist, free enterprise socially liberal, social democrat, far left.

    The question here is what Montie and other dissidents do. Dropping out of politics is an option, as suggested downthread, but politics is a virus that you never quite get rid of once it's in your metabolism. Drifting back in a few years would be just embarrassing. Forming an independent right-wing pressure group - like Migration Watch but without the one-issue obsession - might be an option, which could evolve into a new party or affiliate back to the Tories, depending how things go.

    The other interesting trend is the lingering death of most political parties as membership organisations. Corbyn's Labour is the exception that tests the rule, but in the long term membership of parties is becoming increasingly unfashionable, not just in Britain but almost everywhere. The US parties manage without formal membership - maybe that's the future?
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Wanderer said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.

    The problem there is that while the other EU states (imo) have an interest in offering a deal that will fly with British voters it is no concern of theirs whether it also splits the Conservative Party.
    And this is entirely the point. It is entirely rational for many other EU leaders to believe that the UK will vote to stay in the EU regardless of the consequences of this 're-negotiation'. For large numbers of voters the whole thing will have barely registered. They will know that many of the things that Cameron has apparently been asking for in the negotiation are not supported by a sizeable chunk of the electorate. Now they may be wrong in all this, time will tell, but it is entirely rational for them to believe that this is entirely about internal Conservative Party politics, allowing the main Conservative party players to face down the sizeable number of MPs/activists who will support "Leave" come what may, and little really to do with national politics.

    The only danger is if somehow the referendum becomes not about "Remain vs Leave" but about "does the 'deal' change anything"?. One can believe that the deal doesn't change anything but still vote remain.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    :+1:

    Come on Dave, this is what we elected you for. Walk away from the table, get the first plane back to London this morning and tell the Cabinet you're recommending we leave.
    Delighted others are agreeing with my stance, Cameron finds himself in a tricky position. It has long been assumed on here that whatever he recommends will prevail, strange thing is if he opts to Remain that's far from certain, if he changes course to Leave it's a comfortable Out.

    As a long term, committed Outer I'm delighted at what these "negotiations" have proven, but I'm genuinely shocked how poorly Cameron has managed it all, his reputation is irrevocably damaged regardless of the outcome.

    Incidentally someone called Penny Mordaunt looks likely to campaign for Out, I'd like to see more of her on tv
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    SeanT said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    That's the FT's interpretation. It says this is "very tricky" for Cameron. Well, yes.
    The language on the non-Euro protections is even worst than the second draft. It now says in no uncertain terms "the singke rulebook is to be applied to all financial institutions and credit institutions". This means not just UK banks come under Eurozone control, but also asset managers, mutual funds and hedge funds.

    In addition it also removes any description of differences within the rulebook for non-Euro states. So its gone from different rules, to different application of the same rules, to the same rules. So the ECB decides how it will be done and the Bank of England will have to follow suit. This is a complete disaster. Cameron will have sold out control of the entire UK finance sector if he signs this deal. And whats worse is that he hasn't even got a full proof non-discrimination protection as it can still happen for "objective reasons". And we have to "facilitate" Eurozone integration without raising more objections.

    The French have won hook line and sinker if this goes through.
    The rule book for financial services in the Single market will be Mifid II. This will apply inside and outside the EZ. I think you are getting confused about what is supposedly being negotiated here. Given Cameron's antics this is hardly your fault.
    Incorrect. Mifid II is only one small chunk of European single rulebook. Think about it - UK already signed up for that so why would French be changing text to make sure European rulebook applies to UK if thats all it was??
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    SeanT said:

    It's almost certainly true that it's only FPTP which is now preventing the appearance of two more parties - a "true right" Tory party and a "social democrat mark II" centre-left party. The awful fate of the SDP is still putting everyone off, but the reality, reflected in every country with proportional systems, is that there is space for at least four distinct, well-developed political positions: traditionalist/nationalist, free enterprise socially liberal, social democrat, far left.

    The question here is what Montie and other dissidents do. Dropping out of politics is an option, as suggested downthread, but politics is a virus that you never quite get rid of once it's in your metabolism. Drifting back in a few years would be just embarrassing. Forming an independent right-wing pressure group - like Migration Watch but without the one-issue obsession - might be an option, which could evolve into a new party or affiliate back to the Tories, depending how things go.

    The other interesting trend is the lingering death of most political parties as membership organisations. Corbyn's Labour is the exception that tests the rule, but in the long term membership of parties is becoming increasingly unfashionable, not just in Britain but almost everywhere. The US parties manage without formal membership - maybe that's the future?

    Westminster-centric. The SNP and UKIP have already broken the mould in Scotland and Strasbourg. And they are powerful. The rise of the former has crippled Labour in London, the rise of the latter has forced the Tories to offer this referendum.
    Sure, but as Nick says, the two-party lock in Westminster is the result of FPTP and elections to Holyrood and Strasbourg are under PR. Also, voters don't take the European Parliament seriously and would probably vote for fringe parties whatever the system.
  • Options
    I wonder if funds in UK will start coming out for Brexit. Its one thing big banks to be at ECB's mercy. They at least have lobbying power and are often present in Eurozone nations. But mutual funds are often boutique and wholly London based. They could easily face the wrath of Euro politicians hurting financier bogeymen for domestic populist reasons.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    :+1:

    Come on Dave, this is what we elected you for. Walk away from the table, get the first plane back to London this morning and tell the Cabinet you're recommending we leave.
    Delighted others are agreeing with my stance, Cameron finds himself in a tricky position. It has long been assumed on here that whatever he recommends will prevail, strange thing is if he opts to Remain that's far from certain, if he changes course to Leave it's a comfortable Out.

    As a long term, committed Outer I'm delighted at what these "negotiations" have proven, but I'm genuinely shocked how poorly Cameron has managed it all, his reputation is irrevocably damaged regardless of the outcome.

    Incidentally someone called Penny Mordaunt looks likely to campaign for Out, I'd like to see more of her on tv
    It would be an absolute bombshell if Cam recommended leave. I'd love to see how it went down, but doubt it'll happen. A shame :(
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Hmm. In two minds about this. I think for Montgomerie (or One True Voice) this is a rare overlap of professional interest (being a journalist mattering more, perhaps, than being a Conservative) and personal conviction. Whilst I think he's been wrong about almost everything, his lack of fondness for the EU is not something manufactured, I'd guess.

    That said, Cameron's going in a couple of years. By leaving now, Montgomerie (unless he promptly rejoins) loses the ability to directly influence the outcome of the leadership election, though he'll almost certainly try and do so from his journalist pulpit.

    Mr. 63, if Remain wins one suspects you won't be delighted any more.

    As an aside, the news coverage (Sky) of French concerns seems utterly one-sided. The news channel referred to the French wanting "no special treatment for the City of London", as if us governing and regulating the flagship of our own bloody economy was some sort of special favour, or as if it were normal, let alone acceptable, for foreign voices to hold sway over our domestic economy.
  • Options
    Also hitting hedge funds with a big stick needn't fall foul of discrimination rulings as most of the Eurozone doesn't really have any, so no worry of double treatment.
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited February 2016
    It's been UKIPhome for many years and as Nigel Farage described the Sun and the Mail on election night when saying the UKIP vote hurt just the Tories as "political geniuses, god help us" so should we view the 'unite the right' Montie in the same high regard.....

    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 5,322
    February 13
    Richard_Tyndall said:
    Not sure if you intended it to sound this way but it does sound like you are claiming Sean is on the Left. This is very much not the case. Until Recently Sean was one of the Tory party's staunchest defenders. It appears to be Cameron's policy on the EU that has driven Sean out, just as it did many more of us.

    I'm hoping you'll claim montie too before much longer... he's such a bore.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    SeanT said:

    alex. said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's sad but perfectly understandable for Montie to quit the party. The problems will come if many more high profile members quit in the coming days.

    I don't think the PM quite expected the reaction to the EU deal to be quite as bad as it was, and even today it looks like various other EU members are trying to water it down further still.

    The problem there is that while the other EU states (imo) have an interest in offering a deal that will fly with British voters it is no concern of theirs whether it also splits the Conservative Party.
    And this is entirely the point. It is entirely rational for many other EU leaders to believe that the UK will vote to stay in the EU regardless of the consequences of this 're-negotiation'. For large numbers of voters the whole thing will have barely registered. They will know that many of the things that Cameron has apparently been asking for in the negotiation are not supported by a sizeable chunk of the electorate. Now they may be wrong in all this, time will tell, but it is entirely rational for them to believe that this is entirely about internal Conservative Party politics, allowing the main Conservative party players to face down the sizeable number of MPs/activists who will support "Leave" come what may, and little really to do with national politics.

    The only danger is if somehow the referendum becomes not about "Remain vs Leave" but about "does the 'deal' change anything"?. One can believe that the deal doesn't change anything but still vote remain.
    Cameron will win, just about, because in the end we will all forget about the "deal". It's a rubbish deal, of course, totally shoddy - but it's too arcane for most people. Project Panic will Prevail.

    The troubles will come after when it very swiftly unravels. Cameron will depart with disgrace snapping at his heels. The eurosceptics will rise up with renewed anger. We'll do it all again in 2026.
    Depends which party is in power, of course. The Conservatives are becoming awfully complacent on that point.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    edited February 2016

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    :+1:

    Come on Dave, this is what we elected you for. Walk away from the table, get the first plane back to London this morning and tell the Cabinet you're recommending we leave.
    Delighted others are agreeing with my stance, Cameron finds himself in a tricky position. It has long been assumed on here that whatever he recommends will prevail, strange thing is if he opts to Remain that's far from certain, if he changes course to Leave it's a comfortable Out.

    As a long term, committed Outer I'm delighted at what these "negotiations" have proven, but I'm genuinely shocked how poorly Cameron has managed it all, his reputation is irrevocably damaged regardless of the outcome.

    Incidentally someone called Penny Mordaunt looks likely to campaign for Out, I'd like to see more of her on tv
    I have been a huge Dave fan for 10 years, but shocked at how badly he's played this one. He made it too clear before he started negotiating that he would campaign for Remain whatever the outcome.

    The current charade convinces me that the rest of the EU have no interest in helping the PM out, and that he misjudged the reaction of the press to the fig leaf he was given.

    On the lovely Ms Mourdant, she will liven up the campaign no end. A class act, with a sick sense of humour!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvLcYUXBBuc
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    :+1:

    Come on Dave, this is what we elected you for. Walk away from the table, get the first plane back to London this morning and tell the Cabinet you're recommending we leave.
    Delighted others are agreeing with my stance, Cameron finds himself in a tricky position. It has long been assumed on here that whatever he recommends will prevail, strange thing is if he opts to Remain that's far from certain, if he changes course to Leave it's a comfortable Out.

    As a long term, committed Outer I'm delighted at what these "negotiations" have proven, but I'm genuinely shocked how poorly Cameron has managed it all, his reputation is irrevocably damaged regardless of the outcome.

    Incidentally someone called Penny Mordaunt looks likely to campaign for Out, I'd like to see more of her on tv
    It would be an absolute bombshell if Cam recommended leave. I'd love to see how it went down, but doubt it'll happen. A shame :(
    Rob, I have no idea who advises Cameron but I suggest you pop round to No 10 and say:

    Look mate, you've misjudged things but you have the chance to change tack and become the greatest Tory PM in history. Recommend Leave due to EU intransigence and doing the right thing for the nation. You'll finish Ukip for good, unite the Eurosceptics and stand down covered in glory.

    Worth a try?

  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    What does Tim Montgomery's decision tell us about which way Rupert Murdoch is going as far as The Sun,Times and Sunday Times are concerned?He hasn't got a lot of time these days for whom he calls "the posh boys".I'm pretty sure once Bottler Boris has wet his nappy and called for nanny,Alexander Johnson will be off Rupert's Christmas Card list.
  • Options

    Good morning, everyone.

    Hmm. In two minds about this. I think for Montgomerie (or One True Voice) this is a rare overlap of professional interest (being a journalist mattering more, perhaps, than being a Conservative) and personal conviction. Whilst I think he's been wrong about almost everything, his lack of fondness for the EU is not something manufactured, I'd guess.

    That said, Cameron's going in a couple of years. By leaving now, Montgomerie (unless he promptly rejoins) loses the ability to directly influence the outcome of the leadership election, though he'll almost certainly try and do so from his journalist pulpit.

    Mr. 63, if Remain wins one suspects you won't be delighted any more.

    As an aside, the news coverage (Sky) of French concerns seems utterly one-sided. The news channel referred to the French wanting "no special treatment for the City of London", as if us governing and regulating the flagship of our own bloody economy was some sort of special favour, or as if it were normal, let alone acceptable, for foreign voices to hold sway over our domestic economy.

    Also, WE ARE OUTSIDE EUROZONE. If course we should have leighway to regulate own affairs. "No special treatment" means Eurozone governance of non-Euro finance in same way as Eurozone finance.

    I also see there is a potential new addition (still to be negotiated) that EU authorities may be in charge when non-Euro countries bailout banks in future, and could have to be co-ordinated with Eurozone. E.g. if we wanted to bail out a bank but Eurozone countries worry it will knock confidence too much, they coud stop us. What a mess.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    SeanT said:

    The FT has the new deal, in annotated form

    http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/?Authorised=false&_i_location=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/18/leaked-brexit-summit-text-full-annotated-document/&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/comment/blogs&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

    The explosive amendment is that the European Parliament now gets to decide if we use our ludicrous emergency brake on benefits. Rendering a feeble change entirely worthless, it seems to me.

    If that is true then Dave has to reject.

    And he knows that, too, I imagine.

    Walk away sir. Let's see some of that establishment gumption that we elected you for.
    :+1:

    Come on Dave, this is what we elected you for. Walk away from the table, get the first plane back to London this morning and tell the Cabinet you're recommending we leave.
    Delighted others are agreeing with my stance, Cameron finds himself in a tricky position. It has long been assumed on here that whatever he recommends will prevail, strange thing is if he opts to Remain that's far from certain, if he changes course to Leave it's a comfortable Out.

    As a long term, committed Outer I'm delighted at what these "negotiations" have proven, but I'm genuinely shocked how poorly Cameron has managed it all, his reputation is irrevocably damaged regardless of the outcome.

    Incidentally someone called Penny Mordaunt looks likely to campaign for Out, I'd like to see more of her on tv
    It would be an absolute bombshell if Cam recommended leave. I'd love to see how it went down, but doubt it'll happen. A shame :(
    Rob, I have no idea who advises Cameron but I suggest you pop round to No 10 and say:

    Look mate, you've misjudged things but you have the chance to change tack and become the greatest Tory PM in history. Recommend Leave due to EU intransigence and doing the right thing for the nation. You'll finish Ukip for good, unite the Eurosceptics and stand down covered in glory.

    Worth a try?

    I'm secretly hoping it was a long con, and he was always going to vote leave :p
This discussion has been closed.