Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
There were plenty on here who said before the vote there would be an economic hit. Anyone who ever said there would be no pain in the choice, no risk, was a liar or a fool.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
.... the best leave option for the country is the one they can deliver - it might not be anything like what remainers want, but it will be more positive than Labour can offer. ...
A bit like saying "You are getting executed in the morning. Hanging or firing squad?"
I did say I struggle to see how they would manage such a pitch. Although in fairness if offered a choice between being torn about by rabid badgers, or a bullet to the back of the head, there is still one option which is clearly superior even if the outcome is terrible either way. People have made such choices.
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
I supported an orderly Brexit (with other countries) which would be manageable to the UK, if the EU changed its strategy and became the Eurozone club.
What we’re getting is a disorderly Brexit.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
Corbynites make the same argument on things like nationalisation, there’ll be an economic hit but it’ll be worth it.
You are rewriting history. You did not support Brexit and argued on here regularly for Remain. Moreover there were plenty of us saying that any economic hit would be worth it even if it was the idiotic claims made by Osborne.
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
When the utilities were nationalised they were often seen as unresponsive, lethargic bureaucracies which put the interests of the staff ahead of consumers.
Now they are privatised they are seen as unresponsive, overcharging bureaucracies which put the financial interests of the shareholders and directors ahead of consumers. And they are mostly owned by foreigners to boot.
A more succinct analysis than my own ramblings on the subject.
They were crap then (I'm told), and they are crap now. Maybe the crap level has reduced, I don't know, but their service is crap, their prices are crap, they're just, well, you get it.
Utility supplies are like the weather - sometimes good, sometimes bad but people love to moan about it. Railways are the same.
Of course, we do all need to keep pinching ourselves, and remembering that a mere five months ago we were discussing the imminent collapse and split of the Labour Party, and worrying about PM Theresa May gaining such an enormous and impregnable majority that the lack of a credible opposition was a threat to democracy.
So if anyone tells you with great confidence what the future will bring, the only certainty is that they are wrong.
Richard we certainly do .I honestly thought the majority would be immense for May.I do not think I have seen such a change in a few weeks of an election campaign in my lifetime.
Likewise.
Has there ever been a weaker retail politics campaigner than May?
... As the whole point of leaving the EU was to take back control, that clearly doesn't compute
That is the reality that we (as a country) are not facing up to. We cannot take back control and it is delusional to think we can. The world (as well as the EU) is being more and more interlinked and interdependent and that means that decisions by others outside the UK will have impacts on us.
That is the way it is these days and it will become more so.
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
The median age of the country is somewhere around 40. So the answer to your question is no.
I’m nearly 40, and have memories of walking to phone boxes in the ‘80s because it took weeks to get a phone installed when we moved house. I also remember British Rail “We’re Getting There” - with the run down trains and soggy sandwiches.
No thanks.
What Labour don't tell anyone, because this is idealogical, is that all these utilities are highly regulated. If there is an issue it would be a damn sight cheaper to tighten the regulation surely?
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
There were plenty on here who said before the vote there would be an economic hit. Anyone who ever said there would be no pain in the choice, no risk, was a liar or a fool.
I would be interested if anyone can find examples of Johnson or Gove talking about pain and risk during the referendum campaign. Or are they perhaps "liars and fools"?
I still struggle to see any other outcome than Remain within the next 18 months, with the Tory Eurosceptic wing finding themselves marginalised.
That's because you're delusional.
Anyone who can't see other outcomes than the one they want is a fool. There are always multiple possible outcomes.
You're taking it too literally. Of course I can conceive of other outcomes but I don't think they are plausible.
Why aren't they plausible?
Are the other outcomes more or less plausible than President Donald Trump?
Are they more or less plausible than the public voting for Brexit?
Are they more or less plausible than the PM enjoying over 20% opinion poll leads against Jeremy Corbyn calling a snap election and losing her majority?
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
I supported an orderly Brexit (with other countries) which would be manageable to the UK, if the EU changed its strategy and became the Eurozone club.
What we’re getting is a disorderly Brexit.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
Corbynites make the same argument on things like nationalisation, there’ll be an economic hit but it’ll be worth it.
You are rewriting history. You did not support Brexit and argued on here regularly for Remain. Moreover there were plenty of us saying that any economic hit would be worth it even if it was the idiotic claims made by Osborne.
You can ask Mr Dancer, I said that in the future if the EU developed in to a full political union to go with the economic and monetary union to become the Eurozone bloc then it might be in the interest of the Eurozone countries to Leave in an orderly fashion to become associate members.
I still struggle to see any other outcome than Remain within the next 18 months, with the Tory Eurosceptic wing finding themselves marginalised.
That's because you're delusional.
Anyone who can't see other outcomes than the one they want is a fool. There are always multiple possible outcomes.
You're taking it too literally. Of course I can conceive of other outcomes but I don't think they are plausible.
Why aren't they plausible?
Are the other outcomes more or less plausible than President Donald Trump?
Are they more or less plausible than the public voting for Brexit?
Are they more or less plausible than the PM enjoying over 20% opinion poll leads against Jeremy Corbyn calling a snap election and losing her majority?
Yes, less plausible than any of those things, because we are now outside the realms of electoral politics.
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
There were plenty on here who said before the vote there would be an economic hit. Anyone who ever said there would be no pain in the choice, no risk, was a liar or a fool.
I cite the threads Alastair and I wrote before the vote about Brexit not being easy or realistic as the Leavers said it would be.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
There were plenty on here who said before the vote there would be an economic hit. Anyone who ever said there would be no pain in the choice, no risk, was a liar or a fool.
I would be interested if anyone can find examples of Johnson or Gove talking about pain and risk during the referendum campaign. Or are they perhaps "liars and fools"?
If they never admitted there were serious risks, that there would be some pain (even if they believed it would be slight and worth it), yes they were liars or fools, and I would have had no problem saying so at the time, just as I called out the ridiculous Turkey scaremongering during the campaign. Perhaps I and others who felt the risk and pain would/could be worth it are or will be wrong, but to not acknowledge the risks with such a monumental decision would have been simply wrong.
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
When the utilities were nationalised they were often seen as unresponsive, lethargic bureaucracies which put the interests of the staff ahead of consumers.
Now they are privatised they are seen as unresponsive, overcharging bureaucracies which put the financial interests of the shareholders and directors ahead of consumers. And they are mostly owned by foreigners to boot.
A more succinct analysis than my own ramblings on the subject.
They were crap then (I'm told), and they are crap now. Maybe the crap level has reduced, I don't know, but their service is crap, their prices are crap, they're just, well, you get it.
Perhaps we should try a controlled experiment?
We nationalise one of the areas of utility (say electricity) and then compare after 5 years. Is it more crap, less crap, cheaper etc etc. If the service is great, the price has come down/stopped rising and the public is happy - then nationalise the rest.
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
The median age of the country is somewhere around 40. So the answer to your question is no.
I’m nearly 40, and have memories of walking to phone boxes in the ‘80s because it took weeks to get a phone installed when we moved house. I also remember British Rail “We’re Getting There” - with the run down trains and soggy sandwiches.
No thanks.
True but it should not be just ideology but what works best and is not a monopoly.The Royal Mail Water are harder cases to justify.
Mr. Observer, the claims of Remain were over the top. Legitimate concerns were overshadowed by Osborne's "You'll all be eaten by giant mutant crabs" brand of doom. [Both campaigns were terrible, but in a bullshit contest it seems hope trumps fear].
Mr. Eagles, nationalisation is permanent, the act of leaving the EU is a single event. The comparison is flawed.
You wanted a fictional departure. If I believed for a moment it was credible to remain and either have reform that wasn't just mindless, ideological centralisation *or* to thereby achieve a better form of departure (as per your hope), I would've voted remain. Neither are or were credible.
Mr. Tyndall, it was said by Mr. Eagles we should remain and then leave ten years down the line. I thought then, and think now, that such a position is, ahem, optimistic [see the rest of this post] but that *was* what he said.
A Leaver view of what looks like a good deal is very different from a Remainer view.
Theresa May might yet negotiate a deal that isn't completely catastrophic. It's still not going to enthuse Remain voters.
I don't think the Conservatives have begun to realise how strategically awful their position is.
There are no good choices so you have to trade off the disadvantages of each. Nevertheless the choices are clear: 1) Outer space with a prospect of a limited trade agreement at some time in the future. This option is chaotic, results in long term uncertainty and is costly; 2) Rejoin the EU. The one definite in all this is that voters rejected that option; 3) Single Market and/or Customs Union. Gives us much of the same benefits and obligations of membership but on a strictly do as you are told basis. As the whole point of leaving the EU was to take back control, that clearly doesn't compute.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
I agree - the choice is in, over the cliff or EEA. And EEA is the only realistic option, but I am beginning to wonder if it is achievable in the time available. IIRC it would require unanimity amongst the 27 - the same approvals process as CETA - not to mention approval by the European Parliament, and both houses at Westminster. And we are a long way from even starting the process.
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
There were plenty on here who said before the vote there would be an economic hit. Anyone who ever said there would be no pain in the choice, no risk, was a liar or a fool.
I would be interested if anyone can find examples of Johnson or Gove talking about pain and risk during the referendum campaign. Or are they perhaps "liars and fools"?
Boris doesn't do pain. He is the blustery optimism guy. Essentially this is one of his USP's. It may be the Tory party's only chance against the Hope and Optimism of Jezza.
If I believed for a moment it was credible to remain and either have reform that wasn't just mindless, ideological centralisation *or* to thereby achieve a better form of departure (as per your hope), I would've voted remain. Neither are or were credible.
I was in a similar vein. The dream of the EU I don't have too many issues with, but the reality was not pleasant and I lost hope it would ever again move in a direction I preferred.
Mr. Observer, the claims of Remain were over the top. Legitimate concerns were overshadowed by Osborne's "You'll all be eaten by giant mutant crabs" brand of doom. [Both campaigns were terrible, but in a bullshit contest it seems hope trumps fear].
Mr. Eagles, nationalisation is permanent, the act of leaving the EU is a single event. The comparison is flawed.
You wanted a fictional departure. If I believed for a moment it was credible to remain and either have reform that wasn't just mindless, ideological centralisation *or* to thereby achieve a better form of departure (as per your hope), I would've voted remain. Neither are or were credible.
Mr. Tyndall, it was said by Mr. Eagles we should remain and then leave ten years down the line. I thought then, and think now, that such a position is, ahem, optimistic [see the rest of this post] but that *was* what he said.
Nationalisation isn’t permanent, see all those privatisations Mrs Thatcher carried out.
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
The median age of the country is somewhere around 40. So the answer to your question is no.
I’m nearly 40, and have memories of walking to phone boxes in the ‘80s because it took weeks to get a phone installed when we moved house. I also remember British Rail “We’re Getting There” - with the run down trains and soggy sandwiches.
No thanks.
True but it should not be just ideology but what works best and is not a monopoly.The Royal Mail Water are harder cases to justify.
Not sure the Royal Mail counts as a natural monopoly. It is a waste of human capital to have more than one person deliver stuff to your door each day, but already happens on a large scale as we have couriers and Amazon deliveries etc.
No one in their right mind would have more than one water piper coming into their house.
I still struggle to see any other outcome than Remain within the next 18 months, with the Tory Eurosceptic wing finding themselves marginalised.
That's because you're delusional.
Anyone who can't see other outcomes than the one they want is a fool. There are always multiple possible outcomes.
You're taking it too literally. Of course I can conceive of other outcomes but I don't think they are plausible.
Why aren't they plausible?
Are the other outcomes more or less plausible than President Donald Trump?
Are they more or less plausible than the public voting for Brexit?
Are they more or less plausible than the PM enjoying over 20% opinion poll leads against Jeremy Corbyn calling a snap election and losing her majority?
Anyone who thought that a President Trump outcome wasn't plausible any time after autumn 2015 was an idiot. Trump consistently headed polls for months before Iowa. It was clear that he had a sizable set of supporters who had bought into his vision. Given the split field against him, he was always going to go the distance in the primaries, subject to events taking him down. Now, it's true that there was quite a high chance of such an 'event' (indeed, there was more than one that would have killed off a more conventional candidate), and there was also a good chance that given his ratings, he might fall at the final hurdle to the last professional candidate standing. There was also the matter of the general election, which was always a tough ask but even then, it was clear from pre-Iowa that the Democrats would have a weak candidate of their own, vulnerable to the negative campaigning Trump was so adept at.
A president Trump was never certain nor even, right up to the end, probable. But it was most certainly plausible.
By contrast, Britain will Leave the EU in or before March 2019 providing that the Conservative government lasts that long. May doesn't want to change that policy; if she did, she'd be No Confidenced within a week; if she goes before then for other reasons, her successor will be incapable of winning the leadership without committing to that policy.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
There were plenty on here who said before the vote there would be an economic hit. Anyone who ever said there would be no pain in the choice, no risk, was a liar or a fool.
The problem is that the Leave vote was carried on the tiniest of margins with the promise that there would be no pain. There isn't the mandate nor the political will for hard Brexit. Why do you think Mrs May is signing up to the EU agenda and kicking the can as hard as possible, rather than converting the M20 into a lorry park for Dover customs?
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
The median age of the country is somewhere around 40. So the answer to your question is no.
I’m nearly 40, and have memories of walking to phone boxes in the ‘80s because it took weeks to get a phone installed when we moved house. I also remember British Rail “We’re Getting There” - with the run down trains and soggy sandwiches.
No thanks.
True but it should not be just ideology but what works best and is not a monopoly.The Royal Mail Water are harder cases to justify.
Not sure the Royal Mail counts as a natural monopoly. It is a waste of human capital to have more than one person deliver stuff to your door each day, but already happens on a large scale as we have couriers and Amazon deliveries etc.
No one in their right mind would have more than one water piper coming into their house.
A Leaver view of what looks like a good deal is very different from a Remainer view.
Theresa May might yet negotiate a deal that isn't completely catastrophic. It's still not going to enthuse Remain voters.
I don't think the Conservatives have begun to realise how strategically awful their position is.
There are no good choices so you have to trade off the disadvantages of each. Nevertheless the choices are clear: 1) Outer space with a prospect of a limited trade agreement at some time in the future. This option is chaotic, results in long term uncertainty and is costly; 2) Rejoin the EU. The one definite in all this is that voters rejected that option; 3) Single Market and/or Customs Union. Gives us much of the same benefits and obligations of membership but on a strictly do as you are told basis. As the whole point of leaving the EU was to take back control, that clearly doesn't compute.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
I agree - the choice is in, over the cliff or EEA. And EEA is the only realistic option, but I am beginning to wonder if it is achievable in the time available. IIRC it would require unanimity amongst the 27 - the same approvals process as CETA - not to mention approval by the European Parliament, and both houses at Westminster. And we are a long way from even starting the process.
I have long been of the view that we are probably heading for a car crash, not because anyone wants it but because no one is willing to take the steps necessary to avert it.
A Leaver view of what looks like a good deal is very different from a Remainer view.
Theresa May might yet negotiate a deal that isn't completely catastrophic. It's still not going to enthuse Remain voters.
I don't think the Conservatives have begun to realise how strategically awful their position is.
There are no good choices so you have to trade off the disadvantages of each. Nevertheless the choices are clear: 1) Outer space with a prospect of a limited trade agreement at some time in the future. This option is chaotic, results in long term uncertainty and is costly; 2) Rejoin the EU. The one definite in all this is that voters rejected that option; 3) Single Market and/or Customs Union. Gives us much of the same benefits and obligations of membership but on a strictly do as you are told basis. As the whole point of leaving the EU was to take back control, that clearly doesn't compute.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
I agree - the choice is in, over the cliff or EEA. And EEA is the only realistic option, but I am beginning to wonder if it is achievable in the time available. IIRC it would require unanimity amongst the 27 - the same approvals process as CETA - not to mention approval by the European Parliament, and both houses at Westminster. And we are a long way from even starting the process.
In 10 years time finding a Leave voter who'll admit it will be harder than it finding someone who thought Iraq was a good idea today.
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
The median age of the country is somewhere around 40. So the answer to your question is no.
I’m nearly 40, and have memories of walking to phone boxes in the ‘80s because it took weeks to get a phone installed when we moved house. I also remember British Rail “We’re Getting There” - with the run down trains and soggy sandwiches.
No thanks.
True but it should not be just ideology but what works best and is not a monopoly.The Royal Mail Water are harder cases to justify.
Not sure the Royal Mail counts as a natural monopoly. It is a waste of human capital to have more than one person deliver stuff to your door each day, but already happens on a large scale as we have couriers and Amazon deliveries etc.
No one in their right mind would have more than one water piper coming into their house.
The last mile to deliver a letter to your house in reality is.As no business could make a profit out of that service.In essence no one would want to commit to a universal service from Lands end to the Shetlands for the price of a first class stamp.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
F1: only early bet I'm contemplating is Verstappen not to be classified at 3.75.
He's got a 50% DNF rate. Rain is possible for the race, though by no means certain.
Hmm.
Edited extra bit: if there is a DNF it's either, in my view, a lap one incident or a reliability issue. Crashes are relatively rare in Malaysia (assuming the weather isn't horrendous).
There were plenty on here who said before the vote there would be an economic hit. Anyone who ever said there would be no pain in the choice, no risk, was a liar or a fool.
The problem is that the Leave vote was carried on the tiniest of margins with the promise that there would be no pain. There isn't the mandate nor the political will for hard Brexit.
I agree, at least on the latter point (certainly people were informed by the Remain side that there would be pain, so it is not as though we were not told - unless someone paid no attention to the campaigns, in which case it doesn't matter what they were promised re pain as they didn't hear it). Within days and weeks of the vote several leavers on here suggested softest possible brexits even would probably have the support of those remainers who, though unhappy, respected the cote's outcome, and have the support of a sizable proportion of the leave vote and therefore a majority of the country.
Now, some of that hope may not have been viable even if it would have had majority support, but I have never accepted the argument that only Brexit type X is respecting the vote, which as we all know did not contain options on what kind of Brexit people wanted, and thus a compromise consensus would be needed. That we have yet to reach that is one reason I have some level of Bregret.
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
I supported an orderly Brexit (with other countries) which would be manageable to the UK, if the EU changed its strategy and became the Eurozone club.
What we’re getting is a disorderly Brexit.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
Corbynites make the same argument on things like nationalisation, there’ll be an economic hit but it’ll be worth it.
You are rewriting history. You did not support Brexit and argued on here regularly for Remain. Moreover there were plenty of us saying that any economic hit would be worth it even if it was the idiotic claims made by Osborne.
It is certainly true that sovereigntists like you have always been absolutely clear that any economic pain Brexit might cause would be worth it. It would be totally wrong to claim otherwise. The problem is that this was not the prospectous sold to voters. Before and after the referendom, they were promised sunlit uplands with no downsides.
Mr. Observer, the claims of Remain were over the top. Legitimate concerns were overshadowed by Osborne's "You'll all be eaten by giant mutant crabs" brand of doom. [Both campaigns were terrible, but in a bullshit contest it seems hope trumps fear].
Mr. Eagles, nationalisation is permanent, the act of leaving the EU is a single event. The comparison is flawed.
You wanted a fictional departure. If I believed for a moment it was credible to remain and either have reform that wasn't just mindless, ideological centralisation *or* to thereby achieve a better form of departure (as per your hope), I would've voted remain. Neither are or were credible.
Mr. Tyndall, it was said by Mr. Eagles we should remain and then leave ten years down the line. I thought then, and think now, that such a position is, ahem, optimistic [see the rest of this post] but that *was* what he said.
I am afraid I file that along with his many other dishonest claims.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
A Leaver view of what looks like a good deal is very different from a Remainer view.
Theresa May might yet negotiate a deal that isn't completely catastrophic. It's still not going to enthuse Remain voters.
I don't think the Conservatives have begun to realise how strategically awful their position is.
There are no good choices so you have to trade off the disadvantages of each. Nevertheless the choices are clear: 1) Outer space with a prospect of a limited trade agreement at some time in the future. This option is chaotic, results in long term uncertainty and is costly; 2) Rejoin the EU. The one definite in all this is that voters rejected that option; 3) Single Market and/or Customs Union. Gives us much of the same benefits and obligations of membership but on a strictly do as you are told basis. As the whole point of leaving the EU was to take back control, that clearly doesn't compute.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
I agree - the choice is in, over the cliff or EEA. And EEA is the only realistic option, but I am beginning to wonder if it is achievable in the time available. IIRC it would require unanimity amongst the 27 - the same approvals process as CETA - not to mention approval by the European Parliament, and both houses at Westminster. And we are a long way from even starting the process.
In 10 years time finding a Leave voter who'll admit it will be harder than it finding someone who thought Iraq was a good idea today.
That really depends. Iraq cost hundreds of thousands of lives and it certainly is not a stable place even today. With Brexit it may end up being worse than most leavers hoped or wished for, but in the absence of human life cost, should be easier to find supporters willing to speak up. If not, then one of the main parties, presumably Labour, will have joined the LDs in being the party of 'rejoin' and the critical question would be what price would the EU accept to readmit us, if at all.
Mr. Eagles, you yourself said you supported us leaving the EU, with the somewhat Cameroon cop-out that you wanted to leave in a decade (when there would've been even more integration and difficulty in withdrawing). To condemn as equivalent to socialism those who advocate the same policy a few years earlier seems unreasonable.
I supported an orderly Brexit (with other countries) which would be manageable to the UK, if the EU changed its strategy and became the Eurozone club.
What we’re getting is a disorderly Brexit.
You Leavers have gone from there will be no economic hit to saying the economic hit will be worth it.
Corbynites make the same argument on things like nationalisation, there’ll be an economic hit but it’ll be worth it.
You are rewriting history. You did not support Brexit and argued on here regularly for Remain. Moreover there were plenty of us saying that any economic hit would be worth it even if it was the idiotic claims made by Osborne.
It is certainly true that sovereigntists like you have always been absolutely clear that any economic pain Brexit might cause would be worth it. It would be totally wrong to claim otherwise. The problem is that this was not the prospectous sold to voters. Before and after the referendom, they were promised sunlit uplands with no downsides.
And were informed that was unrealistic by the other side.
I agree - the choice is in, over the cliff or EEA. And EEA is the only realistic option, but I am beginning to wonder if it is achievable in the time available. IIRC it would require unanimity amongst the 27 - the same approvals process as CETA - not to mention approval by the European Parliament, and both houses at Westminster. And we are a long way from even starting the process.
I share your worries. However, the Article 50 withdrawal isn't the end of the process. If we go outer space at that point there will be pressure to get things settled ASAP. EEA is quicker and easier than bespoke PTA and probably more attractive to the EU, who will be the key players in this. William's point is a fair one. Full membership is easier again. I just think a consensus is more likely for pseudo-Brexit.
And here's a strange thing. Leavers often complain about the EU being a political project. They say they are happy with the economic systems but object to it being a political construct. But if you eliminate any say over what happens to us you also remove the politics and just leave the economics. Job done by the EEA.
A Leaver view of what looks like a good deal is very different from a Remainer view.
Theresa May might yet negotiate a deal that isn't completely catastrophic. It's still not going to enthuse Remain voters.
I don't think the Conservatives have begun to realise how strategically awful their position is.
There are no good choices so you have to trade off the disadvantages of each. Nevertheless the choices are clear: 1) Outer space with a prospect of a limited trade agreement at some time in the future. This option is chaotic, results in long term uncertainty and is costly; 2) Rejoin the EU. The one definite in all this is that voters rejected that option; 3) Single Market and/or Customs Union. Gives us much of the same benefits and obligations of membership but on a strictly do as you are told basis. As the whole point of leaving the EU was to take back control, that clearly doesn't compute.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
I agree - the choice is in, over the cliff or EEA. And EEA is the only realistic option, but I am beginning to wonder if it is achievable in the time available. IIRC it would require unanimity amongst the 27 - the same approvals process as CETA - not to mention approval by the European Parliament, and both houses at Westminster. And we are a long way from even starting the process.
There's also the problem of convincing the Norwegians to allow us in. Currently they are top dogs in EEA and won't welcome their key concerns of fish and oil being overwhelmed by the different priorities of a far larger country. At minimum I think the other EEA members would insist that if we join we are in it for the long haul and not just using it as a stepping stone.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
We could do virtually anything by that method. Aside from recapturing Hong Kong, too weak, or sending Britons to the moon, too expensive.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
We have already accepted an EEA style deal for 2 years but yougov this week had 52% of UK voters opposing any transition deal longer than 2 years and 26% wanted to go straight to full Brexit with no transition period at all
Yet even on that poll voters want 6/12 industries to be in private hands, more than the 5/12 in public hands with 1 split
Maybe, although frankly I'm not sure I'd even put all of them in the same category. One of the private ones is travel agents, is that really qualitatively similar to water providers?
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
We have already accepted an EEA style deal for 2 years but yougov this week had 52% of UK voters opposing any transition deal longer than 2 years
That says to me people are on the borderline of accepting an even longer transition deal, depending on how it is sold and how things develop over the next few months.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
To be honest I'd wanted an associate membership type option in the first place. Working with and close to Europe, but not committed to homogenization in every little thing.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
I hope I'm wrong, but if a disorderly Brexit leads to a long economic slump, it might be possible.
There's also the problem of convincing the Norwegians to allow us in. Currently they are top dogs in EEA and won't welcome their key concerns of fish and oil being overwhelmed by the different priorities of a far larger country. At minimum I think the other EEA members would insist that if we join we are in it for the long haul and not just using it as a stepping stone.
It would require formal treaty consent from the four EFTA countries plus the 27 EU countries. In process terms, it's a non-starter in the available timescale.
If the Leave campaign had coherently argued for EEA membership from the beginning, it could probably have been attained, although you are right that we would have needed to convince the other countries that we were in it for the long haul.
But then, if the Leave campaign had coherently argued for EEA membership, Remain would have won.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
We have already accepted an EEA style deal for 2 years but
The EU is not actually offering one, and if/when it does it will not be EEA-style, it will be EEA. Take it or leave it.
This poll doesnt quite make sense, because if members dont think Corbyn stands much chance of becoming PM, they wouldnt be taking such a grim view of the election. I think the problem is that they see a buffoon as the antidote to the Labour clown -and I could be wrong, maybe he is. But I think the Tories would do better but to look down the political tree for a better more substantial and appealing candidate because most of them at the top of the tree appear to be monkeys.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
I am coming to the same conclusion, and I think we will - probably - accept it. For the time being.
I would like full independence, but if it's that or a socialist or Europhile blowback, I'd take it.
I'm not sure there's much of a limit to what I'd willingly do to keep Corbyn out of office. He's the biggest threat this country faces, and it fucking terrifies me.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
Do people not remember what these looked like when they were in public hands, or did they only interview people in their twenties and thirties?
The median age of the country is somewhere around 40. So the answer to your question is no.
I’m nearly 40, and have memories of walking to phone boxes in the ‘80s because it took weeks to get a phone installed when we moved house. I also remember British Rail “We’re Getting There” - with the run down trains and soggy sandwiches.
No thanks.
True but it should not be just ideology but what works best and is not a monopoly.The Royal Mail Water are harder cases to justify.
Not sure the Royal Mail counts as a natural monopoly. It is a waste of human capital to have more than one person deliver stuff to your door each day, but already happens on a large scale as we have couriers and Amazon deliveries etc.
True. And also, far more relevantly, texts, e-mail and other electronic communication. A very different world from the 1970s or 1980s. The Royal Mail was a natural monopoly, rather as BT once was - but no more.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
To be honest I'd wanted an associate membership type option in the first place. Working with and close to Europe, but not committed to homogenization in every little thing.
Another advantage of cleaving to Single Market rules, inside the EEA - for the moment - is that it would stop or delay lots of Corbyn's crazier ideas, and given the horrible possibility he might win in 2022 (or whenever) that is a definite plus.
This, of course, is why Corbyn is so thoroughly eurosceptic, yet somehow manages to convince his Remainery young fans that he's on their side. It's one of the greatest and most successful con tricks in modern British politics. Hats off to the old guy.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
To be honest I'd wanted an associate membership type option in the first place. Working with and close to Europe, but not committed to homogenization in every little thing.
Another advantage of cleaving to Single Market rules, inside the EEA - for the moment - is that it would stop or delay lots of Corbyn's crazier ideas, and given the horrible possibility he might win in 2022 (or whenever) that is a definite plus.
This, of course, is why Corbyn is so thoroughly eurosceptic, yet somehow manages to convince his Remainery young fans that he's on their side. It's one of the greatest and most successful con tricks in modern British politics. Hats off to the old guy.
I am not sure it is down to him...I think young people are seeing what they want to see in him. It is why no amount of legitimate criticism seems to damage him, just as with Trump.
A good example is that most young lefties will do their nut if anybody utters anything non-pc about BAME or LGBT issues and label them all as homophobic racists, but seem to have no issue with the rampant antisemitism that has taken over parts of the Labour party.
Germaine Greer is in their eyes some horrid bigot, but Jezza being friends with Hamas etc is fine.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
We have already accepted an EEA style deal for 2 years but
The EU is not actually offering one, and if/when it does it will not be EEA-style, it will be EEA. Take it or leave it.
It is offering one based on free movement and payments to the EU which May offered for 2 years and 26% of all voters and 43% of Leave voters oppose even a 2 year transition period
Yet even on that poll voters want 6/12 industries to be in private hands, more than the 5/12 in public hands with 1 split
Maybe, although frankly I'm not sure I'd even put all of them in the same category. One of the private ones is travel agents, is that really qualitatively similar to water providers?
A true socialist economy requires a majority of industry and services to be in state hands, if Corbyn and McDonnell could get support for that they would do it
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
To be honest I'd wanted an associate membership type option in the first place. Working with and close to Europe, but not committed to homogenization in every little thing.
Another advantage of cleaving to Single Market rules, inside the EEA - for the moment - is that it would stop or delay lots of Corbyn's crazier ideas, and given the horrible possibility he might win in 2022 (or whenever) that is a definite plus.
This, of course, is why Corbyn is so thoroughly eurosceptic, yet somehow manages to convince his Remainery young fans that he's on their side. It's one of the greatest and most successful con tricks in modern British politics. Hats off to the old guy.
And it shows what a cult he is.
Cognitive dissonance may set in at some point for the Glasto crowd roaring 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn' as he finishes the job of Brexit, closes down renewable energy companies like Good Energy, wrecks their pensions, and stops them taking more than few € on holiday.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
You must have been campaigning on Mars (and with your ludicrous constant ramping of Boris, it seems like you are still there). I was an association vice-chairman in a semi-safe London Tory seat at the time of the 2001 election and the mood both in the party and on the doorsteps was absolutely dire. Many Tories privately expected Labour to do even better than 1997 and the only reason they didn't was because turnout collapsed.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
I am coming to the same conclusion, and I think we will - probably - accept it. For the time being.
I would like full independence, but if it's that or a socialist or Europhile blowback, I'd take it.
I'm not sure there's much of a limit to what I'd willingly do to keep Corbyn out of office. He's the biggest threat this country faces, and it fucking terrifies me.
Ditto.
Perhaps we should leave the EU only when the Conservatives are in government? And rejoin if Labour win?
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
I am coming to the same conclusion, and I think we will - probably - accept it. For the time being.
I would like full independence, but if it's that or a socialist or Europhile blowback, I'd take it.
I'm not sure there's much of a limit to what I'd willingly do to keep Corbyn out of office. He's the biggest threat this country faces, and it fucking terrifies me.
Ditto.
Seant will you be the Frank Bruno , Stephen Hendry of PB threatening to leave the UK ?
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
We have already accepted an EEA style deal for 2 years but yougov this week had 52% of UK voters opposing any transition deal longer than 2 years
That says to me people are on the borderline of accepting an even longer transition deal, depending on how it is sold and how things develop over the next few months.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
I hope I'm wrong, but if a disorderly Brexit leads to a long economic slump, it might be possible.
Meh. Maybe in 20 years, after a total apocalypse, but according to Elon Musk we're all going to be living on Mars by then, so whatevs.
Once we're out, we're out. For a generation at the very least.
Would a trip to Mars be a travel writer’s wet dream?
Yet even on that poll voters want 6/12 industries to be in private hands, more than the 5/12 in public hands with 1 split
Maybe, although frankly I'm not sure I'd even put all of them in the same category. One of the private ones is travel agents, is that really qualitatively similar to water providers?
A true socialist economy requires a majority of industry and services to be in state hands, if Corbyn and McDonnell could get support for that they would do it
Why have they not mentioned prisons? One thing I really agree should not be in private hands in the prison service or its estate. This is a state thing. No question in my mind.
But no mention from McD.
That's because the public don't associate it with rising bills, which all this support for nationalisation basically is. It's another response to austerity.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
We have already accepted an EEA style deal for 2 years but yougov this week had 52% of UK voters opposing any transition deal longer than 2 years
That says to me people are on the borderline of accepting an even longer transition deal, depending on how it is sold and how things develop over the next few months.
Perhaps so, but a bare majority were opposed to anything longer than 2 years, if that drops a bit it the numbers go somewhere. Granted its not as close on the border as I perhaps thought, but the basic premise is the same - if opposition to longer than 2 years drops just a little bit, its no longer a majority and then its up for grabs as to what people want.
I see that there is a blinding lack of interest that over the last five years the UK had a cumulative current account deficit of nearly half a trillion quid.
That's about £1,500 per year for everyone in the country.
Puts the no expense spared posho dinner into context.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
Ditto for universities. They will face cuts if their entire funding stream is from the government directly rather than student's paying. Possibly massive cuts if Brexit has buggered up government finances. Those cuts may be a price worth paying in order to have free education for over 18s. But voters should be appraised of the consequences.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
You must have been campaigning on Mars (and with your ludicrous constant ramping of Boris, it seems like you are still there). I was an association vice-chairman in a semi-safe London Tory seat at the time of the 2001 election and the mood both in the party and on the doorsteps was absolutely dire. Many Tories privately expected Labour to do even better than 1997 and the only reason they didn't was because turnout collapsed.
Well given our dire election results in London in 2001, even worse than nationally no surprise you failed to make much progress there. By contrast the likes of Andrew Rosindell on the Essex/London borders managed to make gains with more optimistic hardworking campaigns rather than your defeatism.
Given most current polls have the Tories and Labour close to tied to suggest Corbyn is likely to be PM, not even possibly but likely, as a Tory member is absurd. In 2001 of course Labour had 10 to 15% leads
Yet even on that poll voters want 6/12 industries to be in private hands, more than the 5/12 in public hands with 1 split
Maybe, although frankly I'm not sure I'd even put all of them in the same category. One of the private ones is travel agents, is that really qualitatively similar to water providers?
A true socialist economy requires a majority of industry and services to be in state hands, if Corbyn and McDonnell could get support for that they would do it
Why have they not mentioned prisons? One thing I really agree should not be in private hands in the prison service or its estate. This is a state thing. No question in my mind.
But no mention from McD.
That's because the public don't associate it with rising bills, which all this support for nationalisation basically is. It's another response to austerity.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
I hope I'm wrong, but if a disorderly Brexit leads to a long economic slump, it might be possible.
Meh. Maybe in 20 years, after a total apocalypse, but according to Elon Musk we're all going to be living on Mars by then, so whatevs.
Once we're out, we're out. For a generation at the very least.
Would a trip to Mars be a travel writer’s wet dream?
Dunno. I'll let you know when I get back from my Times Travel trip to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia, late next month.
Because the Danakil Depression is probably about as close as you can get to an alien planet, on this earth.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
To be honest I'd wanted an associate membership type option in the first place. Working with and close to Europe, but not committed to homogenization in every little thing.
Another advantage of cleaving to Single Market rules, inside the EEA - for the moment - is that it would stop or delay lots of Corbyn's crazier ideas, and given the horrible possibility he might win in 2022 (or whenever) that is a definite plus.
This, of course, is why Corbyn is so thoroughly eurosceptic, yet somehow manages to convince his Remainery young fans that he's on their side. It's one of the greatest and most successful con tricks in modern British politics. Hats off to the old guy.
This is, ironically, exactly the same argument that Labour Remainers were using about protecting the country from Thatcherite extremism (even if it was what the country voted for).
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
Where are the Labour moderates?
Singing 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn' with fixed grins.
I hope they will be able to sleep at nights, come, say 2025.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
I hope I'm wrong, but if a disorderly Brexit leads to a long economic slump, it might be possible.
Meh. Maybe in 20 years, after a total apocalypse, but according to Elon Musk we're all going to be living on Mars by then, so whatevs.
Once we're out, we're out. For a generation at the very least.
Would a trip to Mars be a travel writer’s wet dream?
Dunno. I'll let you know when I get back from my Times Travel trip to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia, late next month.
Because the Danakil Depression is probably about as close as you can get to an alien planet, on this earth.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective campainger, he'd be an appalling prime minister.
As for 'why enter if you don't think you can win', firstly, there's always the chance you're wrong - it's the difference between what you expect and what's possible - and secondly, there are lesser targets: winning a few seats, making gains in share, winning specific arguments with the public, gaining members. Even just 'defending what we have as best we can'. None of these deliver the big prize this time but they're still useful secondaries.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective campainger, he'd be an appalling prime minister.
As for 'why enter if you don't think you can win', firstly, there's always the chance you're wrong - it's the difference between what you expect and what's possible - and secondly, there are lesser targets: winning a few seats, making gains in share, winning specific arguments with the public, gaining members. Even just 'defending what we have as best we can'. None of these deliver the big prize this time but they're still useful secondaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Comments
Anyone who can't see other outcomes than the one they want is a fool. There are always multiple possible outcomes.
Has there ever been a weaker retail politics campaigner than May?
That is the way it is these days and it will become more so.
Are the other outcomes more or less plausible than President Donald Trump?
Are they more or less plausible than the public voting for Brexit?
Are they more or less plausible than the PM enjoying over 20% opinion poll leads against Jeremy Corbyn calling a snap election and losing her majority?
We nationalise one of the areas of utility (say electricity) and then compare after 5 years. Is it more crap, less crap, cheaper etc etc. If the service is great, the price has come down/stopped rising and the public is happy - then nationalise the rest.
Mr. Eagles, nationalisation is permanent, the act of leaving the EU is a single event. The comparison is flawed.
You wanted a fictional departure. If I believed for a moment it was credible to remain and either have reform that wasn't just mindless, ideological centralisation *or* to thereby achieve a better form of departure (as per your hope), I would've voted remain. Neither are or were credible.
Mr. Tyndall, it was said by Mr. Eagles we should remain and then leave ten years down the line. I thought then, and think now, that such a position is, ahem, optimistic [see the rest of this post] but that *was* what he said.
No one in their right mind would have more than one water piper coming into their house.
A president Trump was never certain nor even, right up to the end, probable. But it was most certainly plausible.
By contrast, Britain will Leave the EU in or before March 2019 providing that the Conservative government lasts that long. May doesn't want to change that policy; if she did, she'd be No Confidenced within a week; if she goes before then for other reasons, her successor will be incapable of winning the leadership without committing to that policy.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
He's got a 50% DNF rate. Rain is possible for the race, though by no means certain.
Hmm.
Edited extra bit: if there is a DNF it's either, in my view, a lap one incident or a reliability issue. Crashes are relatively rare in Malaysia (assuming the weather isn't horrendous).
Now, some of that hope may not have been viable even if it would have had majority support, but I have never accepted the argument that only Brexit type X is respecting the vote, which as we all know did not contain options on what kind of Brexit people wanted, and thus a compromise consensus would be needed. That we have yet to reach that is one reason I have some level of Bregret.
And ports.
And Cable and Wireless.
And here's a strange thing. Leavers often complain about the EU being a political project. They say they are happy with the economic systems but object to it being a political construct. But if you eliminate any say over what happens to us you also remove the politics and just leave the economics. Job done by the EEA.
If the Leave campaign had coherently argued for EEA membership from the beginning, it could probably have been attained, although you are right that we would have needed to convince the other countries that we were in it for the long haul.
But then, if the Leave campaign had coherently argued for EEA membership, Remain would have won.
Sign me up!
I think the problem is that they see a buffoon as the antidote to the Labour clown -and I could be wrong, maybe he is. But I think the Tories would do better but to look down the political tree for a better more substantial and appealing candidate because most of them at the top of the tree appear to be monkeys.
I'm not sure there's much of a limit to what I'd willingly do to keep Corbyn out of office. He's the biggest threat this country faces, and it fucking terrifies me.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
A good example is that most young lefties will do their nut if anybody utters anything non-pc about BAME or LGBT issues and label them all as homophobic racists, but seem to have no issue with the rampant antisemitism that has taken over parts of the Labour party.
Germaine Greer is in their eyes some horrid bigot, but Jezza being friends with Hamas etc is fine.
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
betting PostF1: decided to back Verstappen not to be classified (3.75, Ladbrokes, 3.8 with boost).
He's got a 50% DNF rate and most of that is reliability.
Pre-qualifying ramble up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/malaysia-pre-qualifying-2017.html
Current events ramble about disappointing leadership up here: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/marcus-aurelius-and-henry-ii-comparison.html
And now I'm off.
Marcus Aurelius, lauded as wise, left the empire in the hands of a murderous, bloodthirsty, incestuous mad bastard.
This did not have a positive impact on the Roman Empire.
As for Henry II, I often feel Richard I gets a pass for rebelling against him given how we give shit to John for when Richard was king.
Oh, fuck it.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/voting-intention-conservatives-39-labour-43-22-24-/
But no mention from McD.
That's because the public don't associate it with rising bills, which all this support for nationalisation basically is. It's another response to austerity.
That's about £1,500 per year for everyone in the country.
Puts the no expense spared posho dinner into context.
Ditto for universities. They will face cuts if their entire funding stream is from the government directly rather than student's paying. Possibly massive cuts if Brexit has buggered up government finances. Those cuts may be a price worth paying in order to have free education for over 18s. But voters should be appraised of the consequences.
Where are the Labour moderates?
Given most current polls have the Tories and Labour close to tied to suggest Corbyn is likely to be PM, not even possibly but likely, as a Tory member is absurd. In 2001 of course Labour had 10 to 15% leads
Is there a jealous emoji on Vanilla?
There was an article in the Guardian a way back that argued that your holiday used to be nationalised, and it was great, so ... err ... conclusions.
Thomas Cook was, alongside the railways.
As for 'why enter if you don't think you can win', firstly, there's always the chance you're wrong - it's the difference between what you expect and what's possible - and secondly, there are lesser targets: winning a few seats, making gains in share, winning specific arguments with the public, gaining members. Even just 'defending what we have as best we can'. None of these deliver the big prize this time but they're still useful secondaries.
Step 2. Ummmm
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!