I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
You have but where is the evidence that the main concern for the British people was a referendum on leaving the EU.As for unstoppable you are deluded people were not marching on the street behind UKip.
It was not the main concern for the British people but, as we have rehearsed on here very many times, it was required to tip over those Kippers back to voting Cons in 2015, without which there may well have been a Lab govt. So it was for entirely political means, but then again, that's fair enough because, er, it's politics, innit.
Plus for those who really, really wanted to leave the EU (say 4m-odd of them) they didn't have a voice and politics (again) is all about organising yourself to try to bring about change (cf. Vote OK and hunting).
True shame people do not admit though, it was done for purely party political reasons.Instead of spouting bull shine.
The shame is that the result, rather than lancing the boil, instead just opened the wound but this time within the country, not just the Conservative Party.
Was that foreseeable? Perhaps. But these are old discussions; to use 2017's phrase of the year: it is what it is.
Cameron called the referendum to dish the Eurosceptics in the Tory Party, anchor the UK firmly in the EU and secure his legacy as the man who resolved the European question for a generation. But he ended up making the most catastrophic political misjudgment in post-war history and instead of resolving anything the referendum has made the problem much worse for both his party and his country.
It does seem as if those on the left think Jeremy is virtually home and dry but on listening to question time last night it did not come over all 'Jeremy' and when Lavery said 'they were a Government in waiting' the audience laughed at him. On the subsequent Steven Nolan 5 live phone in there was similar resistance to Jeremy
I am not an expert (missed Mark Senior) on last night locals but labour seem to have improved in their areas, but so did the conservatives in theirs.
The question for Corbyn supporters is not how he extends his base but how, in the end, he gets middle England to vote for him and so far there is little evidence they will
Don't want to place too much weight on this, but the Mumsnet (i.e. left-ish middle class Middle England) reaction to Corbyn's performance has been extremely encouraging for his opponents!
"I find all that uncritical adulation a bit creepy not to say Trumpesque."
"I found it all creepy and culty. I also looked at some MPs joining in the singing and thought it showed just what they will do for power."
"It made me want to puke tbh. I have to switch over when I see his face."
"I am deeply uncomfortable that JC does not seem to be truly committed to routing out antisemitism in his party. The platitudes about racism being unacceptable ring rather hollow when you look at the fact that he was absent from the Labour Friends of Israel meeting. Given all of the very real problems his party has had with antisemitism, why would you skip it?"
"One line chanted over and over by a bunch of idiots isn't "singing". It's at best toe-curlingly awful, at worst fucking creepy.
Personality cult is about right - all the swivel eyed hard left wingers are throwing everything they can at this man who has neither the skills nor personality to lead a Scout troop never mind the country."
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
You have but where is the evidence that the main concern for the British people was a referendum on leaving the EU.As for unstoppable you are deluded people were not marching on the street behind UKip.
It was not the main concern for the British people but, as we have rehearsed on here very many times, it was required to tip over those Kippers back to voting Cons in 2015, without which there may well have been a Lab govt. So it was for entirely political means, but then again, that's fair enough because, er, it's politics, innit.
Plus for those who really, really wanted to leave the EU (say 4m-odd of them) they didn't have a voice and politics (again) is all about organising yourself to try to bring about change (cf. Vote OK and hunting).
True shame people do not admit though, it was done for purely party political reasons.Instead of spouting bull shine.
The shame is that the result, rather than lancing the boil, instead just opened the wound but this time within the country, not just the Conservative Party.
Was that foreseeable? Perhaps. But these are old discussions; to use 2017's phrase of the year: it is what it is.
Very true as I said before the result is to leave , hope it works out well .
the support for Ruth Davidson - who cannot even be a candidate at the moment, and who isn't all that well known amongst party members in England, is strikingly high. My own view is that she is the only one of those named whose selection would be a complete game-changer (and in a good way!). She of course may not want the job, but if she can be persuaded, the party should find a way to make it possible.
Speaking as someone who has been betting against her and JRM... what would need to happen for her to become leader?
Find her a safe seat somehow before the next GE? Lead the party from outside the Commons (is that even possible these days)? Let TM lead the Tories into the next GE, get Ruth to stand in a Scottish constituency and then challenge if the election result is poor?
Alex Salmond held seats in both Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments simultaneously for a total of 4 years or more.
There would be a barrage of sanctimonious wibble from the other parties, but the precedent is there for a party leader and in the shorter term (9 months?) for a First Minister, if not a PM.
Salmond's two constituencies were next door to each other, and indeed had a small overlap IIRC. Davidson's problem is that if she is to be installed as an MP there is nowhere in Scotland where a by-election could realistically be engineered and the Tories would have a 90% plus chance of holding the seat. That would mean a safe seat having to be found for her somewhere in middle England, where an ageing centrist incumbent is willing to make way (incidentally I could envisage my own MP Soames in Mid Sussex making way for her in return for a peerage). But that would reflect exceptionally badly on both the Scottish Tories and Davidson herself....and of course there's no guarantee either of winning the by-election or the leadership contest. I don't think there's any realistic way around Davidson stepping down as an MSP and standing as an MP at the next GE.
Curious that Andrea Leadsom, who after all made the last two a year ago, wasn't even named in this poll.
Not really
See Carney has said this morning rates will rise as soon as November.
I think it was Pong last night who was saying there will be no rate rises for a long time.
Seems within 2 months a small rate rise will happen and no doubt the pound will strengthen on the news
The pound has strengthened in anticipation of a rate rise and probably will not move much higher. If rates fail to go up sterling is likely to fall back again.
I disagree with you totally Both the 1975 referendum held by Labour and the ,2016 referendum were held for party management purposes .There was no unstoppable demand for a referendum on the EU.
If there was no demand, then Remain would have won easily.
Not really. Since the public faces of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne, people voted Leave to indicate their rejection of a couple of complacent toffs, who could not even manage their own Party, let alone EU negotiations and a decent campaign.
Remain only have themselves to blame then if they let Cameron and Osborne represent them.
Remind me, why was the leader of the Labour Party not one of the public faces of Remain?
(I think I've guessed the reason).
You have but where is the evidence that the main concern for the British people was a referendum on leaving the EU.As for unstoppable you are deluded people were not marching on the street behind UKip.
It was not the main concern for the British people but, as we have rehearsed on here very many times, it was required to tip over those Kippers back to voting Cons in 2015, without which there may well have been a Lab govt. So it was for entirely political means, but then again, that's fair enough because, er, it's politics, innit.
Plus for those who really, really wanted to leave the EU (say 4m-odd of them) they didn't have a voice and politics (again) is all about organising yourself to try to bring about change (cf. Vote OK and hunting).
True shame people do not admit though, it was done for purely party political reasons.Instead of spouting bull shine.
The shame is that the result, rather than lancing the boil, instead just opened the wound but this time within the country, not just the Conservative Party.
Was that foreseeable? Perhaps. But these are old discussions; to use 2017's phrase of the year: it is what it is.
Cameron called the referendum to dish the Eurosceptics in the Tory Party, anchor the UK firmly in the EU and secure his legacy as the man who resolved the European question for a generation. But he ended up making the most catastrophic political misjudgment in post-war history and instead of resolving anything the referendum has made the problem much worse for both his party and his country.
Except, without the referendum he would have gone down with probability one as a never-was prime minister because he wouldn't have got back into power.
An issue is that he's not as knowledgeable as his fans make out. Like Bull Gates reading every line of Microsoft well into the 1990s, or Steve Jobs designing every facet of every Apple product, fans tend to see the arch-achievers as greater than they really are, and in the process denigrate the team behind them.
As an example, Musk was planning an interplanetary spaceship without apparently realising that Galactic Cosmic Rays can come from any direction, not just the sun.
But I can forgive that sort of thing as long as he continues to be an arch-disruptor (*) in long stable areas.
(*) He remove the keystone, hence disrupting the arch.
Elon Musk is hype and skilled execution of complex projects in equal measure. Both are important to what he is. Take SpaceX. The product - the standardised and reliable placement of commercial satellites into orbit - is the same as the one provided by Arianespace since the early 90's. But add in exciting talk of manned missions and a massively expanded market of dirt cheap launches by the thousand. Also add in rigorous efficiencies that have almost put Arianespace out of the commercial launch business.
It's a bit like Uber, I suppose, that we have been talking about so much. It's a minicab company at the end of the day. If we didn't have Uber, there are alternatives. But they have the following.
Yes, Musk is a lot of hype but has also delivered huge progress. The first stage rockets landing back are now routine, an innovation that removes an order of magnitude from the cost of getting into space.
As Musk admitted himself today, the Falcon Heavy was much more difficult than everyone thought it would be, I guess after all this is actually rocket science!
Even if it takes a decade to get to Mars, rather than the half a decade he’d like it to be, it will still be a massive achievement.
It’s great to see guys with loads of money invest in something worthwhile that advances mankind.
Everything you say about Musk is right but he is also getting billions from the American government. I'd like to see the British government supporting British entrepreneurs in the same way.
As I understand it the US government are paying for services, ie to launch satellites for the government - mainly because they’re cheaper than NASA for certain payloads.
When we leave the EU it will be easier for the British government to buy British without the pesky EU procurement rules, although I’m not sure that was your point
I yesterday made the analogy of the payday lenders where you can show, pretty simply, that taking into account likely default rates, together with other cost factors, you can get to a "reasonable" interest rate of around 300% without too much trouble.
Likewise landbanks - as both Shelter and (more predictably, but no less validly) the HBF point out - there are many reasons for the developers to have such a landbank as they do, including as you say newts and TPOs and whatnot.
Interest rate calculations on payday loans don’t make sense in the real world.
As an example, if I borrow £20 from you in the pub tonight, and agree that next week I pay you back the £20 next Friday and buy you a £3 pint to say thanks, that works out as an APR of something like 140,000% if compounded weekly, I’d owe you £28k after 52 weeks.
With about 3/4 of the annual trade deficit being accounted for by the UK's net imports from the EU (circa £70bn per annum), and about 30% from Germany alone.
A state of affairs which we are, inexplicably, so desparate to keep in place that we are prepared to pay the EU for the privilege.
Thanks, there's at least two of us here who can see that state of affairs cannot go on forever.
Comments
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3045998-AIBU-to-think-the-singing-of-the-Jeremy-Corbyn-song-was-quite-sweet?pg=1
"I find all that uncritical adulation a bit creepy not to say Trumpesque."
"I found it all creepy and culty. I also looked at some MPs joining in the singing and thought it showed just what they will do for power."
"It made me want to puke tbh. I have to switch over when I see his face."
"I am deeply uncomfortable that JC does not seem to be truly committed to routing out antisemitism in his party. The platitudes about racism being unacceptable ring rather hollow when you look at the fact that he was absent from the Labour Friends of Israel meeting. Given all of the very real problems his party has had with antisemitism, why would you skip it?"
"One line chanted over and over by a bunch of idiots isn't "singing". It's at best toe-curlingly awful, at worst fucking creepy.
Personality cult is about right - all the swivel eyed hard left wingers are throwing everything they can at this man who has neither the skills nor personality to lead a Scout troop never mind the country."
"The many are for the feudal."
LOL!
NEW THREAD
As an example, if I borrow £20 from you in the pub tonight, and agree that next week I pay you back the £20 next Friday and buy you a £3 pint to say thanks, that works out as an APR of something like 140,000% if compounded weekly, I’d owe you £28k after 52 weeks.