Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
Boris caused it. The pressure he's been exerting with his constant disobedience has built and built and Theresa finally snapped.
Erm no. More likely is the PM is slightly unwell at a crucial time.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
One problem is that one of the major players (who shall remain nameless) sees it less as an opportunity to improve his country, and more as an opportunity to become Prime Minister.
But the biggest problem, as you identify, is lack of a clear (and articulated) vision of where we want to be and the trade offs required to get there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I wish Michael Gove were Prime Minister. Who knows, he may yet have an opportunity to become Foreign Secretary at the least.
What the guy who doesn't take advice from people who know what they're doing (aka 'experts')
For someone who pretends to care about facts and logic, you're quite relaxed about taking a quote out of context and ignoring subsequent clarification in order to make a bogus point.
@casino_royale@Elliot@Richard_Tyndall Ridiculous bed wetting. They'll be writing books about May for decades. How did someone prevent enough to give the often misunderstood ' Nasty Party ' speech and who deservedly became PM end up offering the 9 month " Citizens of nowhere " to ' Crush the Sabateurs ' nightmare ? She's reaping what she sowed.
Nah. You are just a nasty piece of sputum with zero empathy. The simplest options are usually the correct ones.
I do feel some empathy for May. The reaction to her coughing is deeply unfair. I agree with the jist of her citizens of nowhere comments but it was ill judged and taken massively out of context. No sympathy at all from me for her unnecessary election fiasco and happy to laugh at her expense at crushing the saboteurs (although it wasn't her words, just a daily mail front page)
But actually I am far more concerned about the EU migrants who have 'accidentally' recieved deportation letters from the home office and are terrified for their famillies and livelihoods. I also notice that there is no shortage of deranged psychopaths who celebrate such actions as the implementation of rules and laws. They are the people with no empathy.
What does May ultimately stand to lose? her job? pride? Some people are going to lose much more because of her decisions.
You see I can agree with you on just about every word there. I don't like May and I don't think she is in any way fit to lead our country. But that is a million miles from YS and his laughing at someone who is clearly in difficulties.
As I mentioned the other day I detested Heath for his politics but I would challenge anyone with a soul not to feel a huge wave of empathy when you saw him in interviews being forced to talk about his private life.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
We coped with Ireland seceding, the EU will cope with us leaving.
And, Ireland also coped with leaving the UK.
That's not my point: my point is that the UK will continue to be important to the EU after we Leave.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
People who wanted a semi-detached relationship will curse the day they turned their backs on Cameron's deal.
A deal you surely reject as valueless since to admit otherwise would involve the EU conceding compromises that you profess to be impossible?
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
There's no doubt in my mind that there are many at the heart of Brussels who think just like WilliamGlenn on that.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
The idea that you can have a democratic state of 500 million people who don't even speak the same language is for the birds.
The EU wants to think of itself as the European equivalent of the US but, sadly, lacks a real understanding of what has made the US Constitution and political settlement as successful and long-standing as it is.
That is why you get someone like Juncker making a State of the Union address, echoing what the US President does, but utterly lacking the essential ingredient, namely, election by the voters of that President.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, no deal is a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. I think Mrs May has, from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech. But once people understand the reality, they won't be happy about it.
I think it's more that we can't decide, and the EU aren't willing to offer us a choice.
TBF we don't know for sure that the EU will offer us the option of a client state on their terms. I think they will. The default is crash out and disaster. Then we don't have a choice. It's what it is.
If that does happen there is, of course, a number of emergency measures the UK could take, if it had the parliamentary majority to do so.
In reality, given the arithmetic, I expect the Government would fall and Corbyn would win.
A sensible deal would ultimately be made within 5-10 years because the EU would have made its point about the consequences of Leaving.
Would it really be that much of a disaster? We'd take a fair economic hit but it would be accompanied by the Bank cutting interest rates and starting up QE again. I suspect we'd have a medium recession and then resume growth. If that came with control of immigration and part of the blame was pushed on Barnier, I think they could get away with it.
If I were the Tories, I would be pointing out how unreasonable the EU was being on the ECJ. On Ireland and money, it's hard to see who is right. On citizens rights, it is ridiculous to demand EU courts have power over EU citizens in the UK but not vice versa.
@casino_royale@Elliot@Richard_Tyndall Ridiculous bed wetting. They'll be writing books about May for decades. How did someone prevent enough to give the often misunderstood ' Nasty Party ' speech and who deservedly became PM end up offering the 9 month " Citizens of nowhere " to ' Crush the Sabateurs ' nightmare ? She's reaping what she sowed.
Nah. You are just a nasty piece of sputum with zero empathy. The simplest options are usually the correct ones.
I do feel some empathy for May. The reaction to her coughing is deeply unfair. I agree with the jist of her citizens of nowhere comments but it was ill judged and taken massively out of context. No sympathy at all from me for her unnecessary election fiasco and happy to laugh at her expense at crushing the saboteurs (although it wasn't her words, just a daily mail front page)
But actually I am far more concerned about the EU migrants who have 'accidentally' recieved deportation letters from the home office and are terrified for their famillies and livelihoods. I also notice that there is no shortage of deranged psychopaths who celebrate such actions as the implementation of rules and laws. They are the people with no empathy.
What does May ultimately stand to lose? her job? pride? Some people are going to lose much more because of her decisions.
You see I can agree with you on just about every word there. I don't like May and I don't think she is in any way fit to lead our country. But that is a million miles from YS and his laughing at someone who is clearly in difficulties.
As I mentioned the other day I detested Heath for his politics but I would challenge anyone with a soul not to feel a huge wave of empathy when you saw him in interviews being forced to talk about his private life.
YS is just a nasty piece of work.
This is how I feel. Despite being on the left I see May as being clunky but a pretty moderate Tory in the scheme of things. Corbyn's lot are complete ideologues.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
£10 per annum? Surely they could look down the back of the sofa to find that?
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
Look on it as an amoeba. Or Hydra. We are cutting ourselves off but they will reform, close the wound and carry on. They are not going to spend too much time thinking "O Woe" but will carry on with what they are left with.
I don't think the EU wants to take over the world, I think they just want to be the EU: a close-knit group of neighbouring nations with shared values and approach to a range of issues. They would even have tolerated a two-speed such group but we decided against it.
They don't "need" to do anything because on March 20th 2019 they will still be the EU with some changes here and there.
If that does happen there is, of course, a number of emergency measures the UK could take, if it had the parliamentary majority to do so.
In reality, given the arithmetic, I expect the Government would fall and Corbyn would win.
A sensible deal would ultimately be made within 5-10 years because the EU would have made its point about the consequences of Leaving.
I expect the EU to agree to an EEA type arrangement with us. Why wouldn't they? But you can never be totally sure.
You can tell the government and civil service intent by the Queen's speech and rhetoric.
We will leave *the* customs union and *the* single market, we will have fisheries, agriculture, regional policy repatriated, free movement will end, as well as the ECJ formally.
We will shadow the EU in a large number of regulatory areas (but not all) and follow ECJ case law. We will not in all. We will have control over free movement, whilst setting generous quotas and visas to EU citizens. We will decide our own fisheries policy whilst setting access/quotas with our neighbours on new terms. We will formally leave the customs union and do new trade deals elsewhere whilst trying to closely align our customs arrangements with the EU. We will save some money. We will try and align our foreign /defence policy with the EU but not within EU structures.
It will be Good Enough.
The question is how much blood has to be waded through on each side to get there.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, no deal is a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. I think Mrs May has, from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech. But once people understand the reality, they won't be happy about it.
I think it's more that we can't decide, and the EU aren't willing to offer us a choice.
TBF we don't know for sure that the EU will offer us the option of a client state on their terms. I think they will. The default is crash out and disaster. Then we don't have a choice. It's what it is.
If that does happen there is, of course, a number of emergency measures the UK could take, if it had the parliamentary majority to do so.
In reality, given the arithmetic, I expect the Government would fall and Corbyn would win.
A sensible deal would ultimately be made within 5-10 years because the EU would have made its point about the consequences of Leaving.
Would it really be that much of a disaster? We'd take a fair economic hit but it would be accompanied by the Bank cutting interest rates and starting up QE again. I suspect we'd have a medium recession and then resume growth. If that came with control of immigration and part of the blame was pushed on Barnier, I think they could get away with it.
If I were the Tories, I would be pointing out how unreasonable the EU was being on the ECJ. On Ireland and money, it's hard to see who is right. On citizens rights, it is ridiculous to demand EU courts have power over EU citizens in the UK but not vice versa.
We need to agree something with the EU, just to to keep operating. So that's the basics like international flights, customs arrangements on day one etc. So we will need to agree to their demands on Article 50: citizens' rights, some tens of billions of euros as a financial settlement and at least an acknowledgement of the intractable Irish border issue. In return we should get a two year grace period while we decide what happens next. That's Theresa May's job. It will be step by step.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
When Osborne and Cameron were fighting to defend Osborne's record ("long term economic plan" etc) it was accepted.
What wasn't accepted was just brushing off the economy like it didn't matter. People are prepared to accept austerity when it is "part of the plan" and viewed as necessary, May and Hammond didn't bother to fight for it though.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
Fighting an election from opposition and fighting it from government are different tasks. Also, Corbyn is clearly a more formidable opponent (surprisingly) than Brown or Miliband.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
Look on it as an amoeba. Or Hydra. We are cutting ourselves off but they will reform, close the wound and carry on. They are not going to spend too much time thinking "O Woe" but will carry on with what they are left with.
I don't think the EU wants to take over the world, I think they just want to be the EU: a close-knit group of neighbouring nations with shared values and approach to a range of issues. They would even have tolerated a two-speed such group but we decided against it.
They don't "need" to do anything because on March 20th 2019 they will still be the EU with some changes here and there.
You're missing the point.
The 16-17% of their chunk they just lost (so they are now 83-84%) is still going to be sitting on their doorstep.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
£10 per annum? Surely they could look down the back of the sofa to find that?
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
The disenfranchised in 2015 had little reason to vote so they didn't vote. Come 2016 and polling stations were full of people being told what they had to do for they had either never voted before or had rarely done so...
Equally the first real obvious council budget cuts only appeared round here in April 2015 as councils cancel and scrap anything and everything they aren't legally required to do....
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, no deal is a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. I think Mrs May has, from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech. But once people understand the reality, they won't be happy about it.
I think it's more that we can't decide, and the EU aren't willing to offer us a choice.
TBF we don't know for sure that the EU will offer us the option of a client state on their terms. I think they will. The default is crash out and disaster. Then we don't have a choice. It's what it is.
If that does happen there is, of course, a number of emergency measures the UK could take, if it had the parliamentary majority to do so.
In reality, given the arithmetic, I expect the Government would fall and Corbyn would win.
A sensible deal would ultimately be made within 5-10 years because the EU would have made its point about the consequences of Leaving.
Would it really be that much of a disaster? We'd take a fair economic hit but it would be accompanied by the Bank cutting interest rates and starting up QE again. I suspect we'd have a medium recession and then resume growth. If that came with control of immigration and part of the blame was pushed on Barnier, I think they could get away with it.
If I were the Tories, I would be pointing out how unreasonable the EU was being on the ECJ. On Ireland and money, it's hard to see who is right. On citizens rights, it is ridiculous to demand EU courts have power over EU citizens in the UK but not vice versa.
Not necessarily, but it's the boring technicalities and practicalities of cross-border lorry movement, aircraft movement, shipping and energy supply that would cause the headlines.
I think EIRE is going to need a special status inside the EU to make this work, and the UK is going to have to have something special for NI within the UK.
Would it really be that much of a disaster? We'd take a fair economic hit but it would be accompanied by the Bank cutting interest rates and starting up QE again. I suspect we'd have a medium recession and then resume growth. If that came with control of immigration and part of the blame was pushed on Barnier, I think they could get away with it.
If I were the Tories, I would be pointing out how unreasonable the EU was being on the ECJ. On Ireland and money, it's hard to see who is right. On citizens rights, it is ridiculous to demand EU courts have power over EU citizens in the UK but not vice versa.
Interest rates are as low as they can go more or less. Unconvinced QE will have much impact.
I think a 'medium' recession would actually be very damaging to the government. Hurts them on their economic credibility (where they currently still lead Labour).
And after very little growth for the past 10 years to go back into recession will look disastrous.
If that does happen there is, of course, a number of emergency measures the UK could take, if it had the parliamentary majority to do so.
In reality, given the arithmetic, I expect the Government would fall and Corbyn would win.
A sensible deal would ultimately be made within 5-10 years because the EU would have made its point about the consequences of Leaving.
I expect the EU to agree to an EEA type arrangement with us. Why wouldn't they? But you can never be totally sure.
You can tell the government and civil service intent by the Queen's speech and rhetoric.
We will leave *the* customs union and *the* single market, we will have fisheries, agriculture, regional policy repatriated, free movement will end, as well as the ECJ formally.
We will shadow the EU in a large number of regulatory areas (but not all) and follow ECJ case law. We will not in all. We will have control over free movement, whilst setting generous quotas and visas to EU citizens. We will decide our own fisheries policy whilst setting access/quotas with our neighbours on new terms. We will formally leave the customs union and do new trade deals elsewhere whilst trying to closely align our customs arrangements with the EU. We will save some money. We will try and align our foreign /defence policy with the EU but not within EU structures.
It will be Good Enough.
The question is how much blood has to be waded through on each side to get there.
They also talked about having a "transition" period. Actually it's a misnomer because it doesn't transition to a new, defined situation. What they really mean is continuation period. I believe them when they say their intention is to leave the SIngle Market and Customs Union etc. But the here and now is the continuation period and those other things are later. The first doesn't lead to the second. The first puts off the second and they need it to put off the second.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
The idea that you can have a democratic state of 500 million people who don't even speak the same language is for the birds.
The EU wants to think of itself as the European equivalent of the US but, sadly, lacks a real understanding of what has made the US Constitution and political settlement as successful and long-standing as it is.
That is why you get someone like Juncker making a State of the Union address, echoing what the US President does, but utterly lacking the essential ingredient, namely, election by the voters of that President.
India is a democratic state with multiple languages and over a billion people.
There is no reason that a federal EU could not operate that way.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
People who wanted a semi-detached relationship will curse the day they turned their backs on Cameron's deal.
A deal you surely reject as valueless since to admit otherwise would involve the EU conceding compromises that you profess to be impossible?
No, it had value, but the implication is that the long term associate membership it implied would not mean 'less Europe' than we have today.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
Look on it as an amoeba. Or Hydra. We are cutting ourselves off but they will reform, close the wound and carry on. They are not going to spend too much time thinking "O Woe" but will carry on with what they are left with.
I don't think the EU wants to take over the world, I think they just want to be the EU: a close-knit group of neighbouring nations with shared values and approach to a range of issues. They would even have tolerated a two-speed such group but we decided against it.
They don't "need" to do anything because on March 20th 2019 they will still be the EU with some changes here and there.
You're missing the point.
The 16-17% of their chunk they just lost (so they are now 83-84%) is still going to be sitting on their doorstep.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
When Osborne and Cameron were fighting to defend Osborne's record ("long term economic plan" etc) it was accepted.
What wasn't accepted was just brushing off the economy like it didn't matter. People are prepared to accept austerity when it is "part of the plan" and viewed as necessary, May and Hammond didn't bother to fight for it though.
Tbf to Hammond, he wanted to fight on the economy, but Mrs May and Nick Timothy wanted to sack Hammond after the election so kept him hidden during the campaign.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
Fighting an election from opposition and fighting it from government are different tasks. Also, Corbyn is clearly a more formidable opponent (surprisingly) than Brown or Miliband.
Oh your first point I agree, so why did Dave achieve better in 2015 than May did in 2017.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
The idea that you can have a democratic state of 500 million people who don't even speak the same language is for the birds.
The EU wants to think of itself as the European equivalent of the US but, sadly, lacks a real understanding of what has made the US Constitution and political settlement as successful and long-standing as it is.
That is why you get someone like Juncker making a State of the Union address, echoing what the US President does, but utterly lacking the essential ingredient, namely, election by the voters of that President.
India is a democratic state with multiple languages and over a billion people.
There is no reason that a federal EU could not operate that way.
But the Indian states only have a fraction of the powers EU member states have - and only Kashmir (controversial as it is) is permitted to fly its own flag.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
When Osborne and Cameron were fighting to defend Osborne's record ("long term economic plan" etc) it was accepted.
What wasn't accepted was just brushing off the economy like it didn't matter. People are prepared to accept austerity when it is "part of the plan" and viewed as necessary, May and Hammond didn't bother to fight for it though.
Brexit killed off for a generation the ability of the Tories to use 'the economy' as a vote winner.
“To overthrow this structure will require immense force of will, stamina and commitment from every pilot,” the letter read.
“It is entirely possible that things will get worse before they get any better. Expect management to fight any change by all means available to them. There will be casualties.
“To paraphrase Churchill: Let us make sure future colleagues look back and say: ‘This was their finest hour’.”
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Deliberate targeting of their ally’s seats. Fortunately for the DUP the Conservative Party in N Ireland is not much above vestigial or something nasty would happen to them.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
The idea that you can have a democratic state of 500 million people who don't even speak the same language is for the birds.
The EU wants to think of itself as the European equivalent of the US but, sadly, lacks a real understanding of what has made the US Constitution and political settlement as successful and long-standing as it is.
That is why you get someone like Juncker making a State of the Union address, echoing what the US President does, but utterly lacking the essential ingredient, namely, election by the voters of that President.
India is a democratic state with multiple languages and over a billion people.
There is no reason that a federal EU could not operate that way.
But the Indian states only have a fraction of the powers EU member states have - and only Kashmir (controversial as it is) is permitted to fly its own flag.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
Not really. If you want a measure of the opposition to her then look at the overall percentage of the vote she got. She not only increased the number of people voting for her she increased the percentage of the voters who supported her as well from the 36.8% that Cameron got in 2015 to 42.4%. By any measure of basic voting she was more popular than Cameron.
“To overthrow this structure will require immense force of will, stamina and commitment from every pilot,” the letter read.
“It is entirely possible that things will get worse before they get any better. Expect management to fight any change by all means available to them. There will be casualties.
“To paraphrase Churchill: Let us make sure future colleagues look back and say: ‘This was their finest hour’.”
Sorry - aviation matters were discussed in the previous thread
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
The idea that you can have a democratic state of 500 million people who don't even speak the same language is for the birds.
The EU wants to think of itself as the European equivalent of the US but, sadly, lacks a real understanding of what has made the US Constitution and political settlement as successful and long-standing as it is.
That is why you get someone like Juncker making a State of the Union address, echoing what the US President does, but utterly lacking the essential ingredient, namely, election by the voters of that President.
India is a democratic state with multiple languages and over a billion people.
There is no reason that a federal EU could not operate that way.
But the Indian states only have a fraction of the powers EU member states have - and only Kashmir (controversial as it is) is permitted to fly its own flag.
I thought Sikkim had a state flag too. Also, the central government has the power to suspend a state government and impose "President's Rule", which is a power it has used frequently.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
Fighting an election from opposition and fighting it from government are different tasks. Also, Corbyn is clearly a more formidable opponent (surprisingly) than Brown or Miliband.
Oh your first point I agree, so why did Dave achieve better in 2015 than May did in 2017.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
The idea that you can have a democratic state of 500 million people who don't even speak the same language is for the birds.
The EU wants to think of itself as the European equivalent of the US but, sadly, lacks a real understanding of what has made the US Constitution and political settlement as successful and long-standing as it is.
That is why you get someone like Juncker making a State of the Union address, echoing what the US President does, but utterly lacking the essential ingredient, namely, election by the voters of that President.
India is a democratic state with multiple languages and over a billion people.
There is no reason that a federal EU could not operate that way.
But the Indian states only have a fraction of the powers EU member states have - and only Kashmir (controversial as it is) is permitted to fly its own flag.
I thought Sikkim had a state flag too. Also, the central government has the power to suspend a state government and impose "President's Rule", which is a power it has used frequently.
Sikkim had a flag, but not since joining India in 1975.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
I was only joking.
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
@casino_royale@Elliot@Richard_Tyndall Ridiculous bed wetting. They'll be writing books about May for decades. How did someone prevent enough to give the often misunderstood ' Nasty Party ' speech and who deservedly became PM end up offering the 9 month " Citizens of nowhere " to ' Crush the Sabateurs ' nightmare ? She's reaping what she sowed.
Nah. You are just a nasty piece of sputum with zero empathy. The simplest options are usually the correct ones.
I do feel some empathy for May. The reaction to her coughing is deeply unfair. I agree with the jist of her citizens of nowhere comments but it was ill judged and taken massively out of context. No sympathy at all from me for her unnecessary election fiasco and happy to laugh at her expense at crushing the saboteurs (although it wasn't her words, just a daily mail front page)
But actually I am far more concerned about the EU migrants who have 'accidentally' recieved deportation letters from the home office and are terrified for their famillies and livelihoods. I also notice that there is no shortage of deranged psychopaths who celebrate such actions as the implementation of rules and laws. They are the people with no empathy.
What does May ultimately stand to lose? her job? pride? Some people are going to lose much more because of her decisions.
You see I can agree with you on just about every word there. I don't like May and I don't think she is in any way fit to lead our country. But that is a million miles from YS and his laughing at someone who is clearly in difficulties.
As I mentioned the other day I detested Heath for his politics but I would challenge anyone with a soul not to feel a huge wave of empathy when you saw him in interviews being forced to talk about his private life.
YS is just a nasty piece of work.
This is how I feel. Despite being on the left I see May as being clunky but a pretty moderate Tory in the scheme of things. Corbyn's lot are complete ideologues.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
I was only joking.
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
Boris as PM will be a bigger disaster than Theresa May.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
David Cameron: Boris Johnson told people he was 'not a Leaver'
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
When Osborne and Cameron were fighting to defend Osborne's record ("long term economic plan" etc) it was accepted.
What wasn't accepted was just brushing off the economy like it didn't matter. People are prepared to accept austerity when it is "part of the plan" and viewed as necessary, May and Hammond didn't bother to fight for it though.
Brexit killed off for a generation the ability of the Tories to use 'the economy' as a vote winner.
That's a load of codswallop.
Almost all of the 48% will have voted that way because they thought it was best economically, if it wasn't for the economy Leave would have been even further in the lead. Very few voted Remain despite the economy.
While a large portion of the 52% voted that way because they thought it was best economically, whether it be the £350 million a week gross befpre rebate that we send to the EU or the ability to sign our own trade deals outside the EU etc
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
Fighting an election from opposition and fighting it from government are different tasks. Also, Corbyn is clearly a more formidable opponent (surprisingly) than Brown or Miliband.
Oh your first point I agree, so why did Dave achieve better in 2015 than May did in 2017.
The Lib Dems.
"We count 12 LibDem MPs, Lord Vader, but their majorities are so small, they're evading our Turbo-lasers!"
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
David Cameron: Boris Johnson told people he was 'not a Leaver'
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
Look on it as an amoeba. Or Hydra. We are cutting ourselves off but they will reform, close the wound and carry on. They are not going to spend too much time thinking "O Woe" but will carry on with what they are left with.
I don't think the EU wants to take over the world, I think they just want to be the EU: a close-knit group of neighbouring nations with shared values and approach to a range of issues. They would even have tolerated a two-speed such group but we decided against it.
They don't "need" to do anything because on March 20th 2019 they will still be the EU with some changes here and there.
You're missing the point.
The 16-17% of their chunk they just lost (so they are now 83-84%) is still going to be sitting on their doorstep.
It does not disappear. Therefore, it matters.
Russia is on their doorstep. They manage.
Non sequitur. Clearly you're not interested in taking the point seriously.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
Fighting an election from opposition and fighting it from government are different tasks. Also, Corbyn is clearly a more formidable opponent (surprisingly) than Brown or Miliband.
Oh your first point I agree, so why did Dave achieve better in 2015 than May did in 2017.
The Lib Dems.
You'll give credit to ISIS before you give Osborne and Cameron for victory in 2015.
You are the reason why the Tories are struggling to beat Corbyn, you won't accept why the Tories won in 2015 thanks to Dave and George.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
I was only joking.
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
Boris as PM will be a bigger disaster than Theresa May.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
I was only joking.
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
Boris as PM will be a bigger disaster than Theresa May.
Trust me, trust JohnO, trust Michael Gove.
You sound like one of those lefty London luvvies wot told us Boris would be a disaster in 2008.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
Fighting an election from opposition and fighting it from government are different tasks. Also, Corbyn is clearly a more formidable opponent (surprisingly) than Brown or Miliband.
Oh your first point I agree, so why did Dave achieve better in 2015 than May did in 2017.
The Lib Dems.
You'll give credit to ISIS before you give Osborne and Cameron for victory in 2015.
You are the reason why the Tories are struggling to beat Corbyn, you won't accept why the Tories won in 2015 thanks to Dave and George.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
Fighting an election from opposition and fighting it from government are different tasks. Also, Corbyn is clearly a more formidable opponent (surprisingly) than Brown or Miliband.
Oh your first point I agree, so why did Dave achieve better in 2015 than May did in 2017.
The Lib Dems.
You'll give credit to ISIS before you give Osborne and Cameron for victory in 2015.
You are the reason why the Tories are struggling to beat Corbyn, you won't accept why the Tories won in 2015 thanks to Dave and George.
I'm not even a Tory member. I'll give Cameron credit, and although I disagreed with him over Brexit I think he's basically a decent bloke.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
By any measure of basic voting she was more popular than Cameron.
OGH & TSE tie themselves in no end of knots trying to wish this away.
Yes of course what ultimately matters is how many seats you get - but how would Cameron (let alone Osborne) have done against a Corbyn 2017?
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
Indeed.
I've been suggesting this for months.
The problem as I see is not that Mrs May isn't popular; its that the left have finally decided to play fantasy politics at exactly the time when people are wanting to believe it is that easy...
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
By any measure of basic voting she was more popular than Cameron.
OGH & TSE tie themselves in no end of knots trying to wish this away.
Yes of course what ultimately matters is how many seats you get - but how would Cameron (let alone Osborne) have done against a Corbyn 2017?
A Tory majority.
They would have fought on the economy and nailed Corbyn on it.
They would have reminded the country of Liam Byrne’s note.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
Look on it as an amoeba. Or Hydra. We are cutting ourselves off but they will reform, close the wound and carry on. They are not going to spend too much time thinking "O Woe" but will carry on with what they are left with.
I don't think the EU wants to take over the world, I think they just want to be the EU: a close-knit group of neighbouring nations with shared values and approach to a range of issues. They would even have tolerated a two-speed such group but we decided against it.
They don't "need" to do anything because on March 20th 2019 they will still be the EU with some changes here and there.
You're missing the point.
The 16-17% of their chunk they just lost (so they are now 83-84%) is still going to be sitting on their doorstep.
It does not disappear. Therefore, it matters.
Russia is on their doorstep. They manage.
Non sequitur. Clearly you're not interested in taking the point seriously.
The serious point applies much more strongly in the other direction. The EU isn’t going anywhere.
Nothing today has changed my mind that Theresa May will stay in Office until mid 2019.
Her speech was excellent up to and including the protester but the cold and cough she has been carrying this week overwhelmed her and her message became more difficult to follow
I do not think it was the diabetes but this can add to the problem
She has moved towards the left on some policies but that is necessary. She is walking a very difficult path between remain and leave and really it is almost impossible for any of the current politicians across the parties to do any better.
I do have reservation about Theresa but the fact she had a bad cold and cough is not one of them.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
By any measure of basic voting she was more popular than Cameron.
OGH & TSE tie themselves in no end of knots trying to wish this away.
Yes of course what ultimately matters is how many seats you get - but how would Cameron (let alone Osborne) have done against a Corbyn 2017?
A Tory majority.
They would have fought on the economy and nailed Corbyn on it.
They would have reminded the country of Liam Byrne’s note.
Mr. Vance, Cameron/Osborne would've done significantly better by virtue of not running such an absolutely terrible campaign.
They made some mistakes in 2010 and had a better time in 2015, but neither came anywhere near close to the catastrophic litany of idiocy and ill-judgement that was the 2017 campaign.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
I was only joking.
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
Boris as PM will be a bigger disaster than Theresa May.
Mr. Vance, Cameron/Osborne would've done significantly better by virtue of not running such an absolutely terrible campaign.
They made some mistakes in 2010 and had a better time in 2015, but neither came anywhere near close to the catastrophic litany of idiocy and ill-judgement that was the 2017 campaign.
No way on Gods earth would Cameron have gone to the country before 2020. Why should he? He had a majority.
@casino_royale@Elliot@Richard_Tyndall Ridiculous bed wetting. They'll be writing books about May for decades. How did someone prevent enough to give the often misunderstood ' Nasty Party ' speech and who deservedly became PM end up offering the 9 month " Citizens of nowhere " to ' Crush the Sabateurs ' nightmare ? She's reaping what she sowed.
Nah. You are just a nasty piece of sputum with zero empathy. The simplest options are usually the correct ones.
I do feel some empathy for May. The reaction to her coughing is deeply unfair. I agree with the jist of her citizens of nowhere comments but it was ill judged and taken massively out of context. No sympathy at all from me for her unnecessary election fiasco and happy to laugh at her expense at crushing the saboteurs (although it wasn't her words, just a daily mail front page)
But actually I am far more concerned about the EU migrants who have 'accidentally' recieved deportation letters from the home office and are terrified for their famillies and livelihoods. I also notice that there is no shortage of deranged psychopaths who celebrate such actions as the implementation of rules and laws. They are the people with no empathy.
What does May ultimately stand to lose? her job? pride? Some people are going to lose much more because of her decisions.
You see I can agree with you on just about every word there. I don't like May and I don't think she is in any way fit to lead our country. But that is a million miles from YS and his laughing at someone who is clearly in difficulties.
As I mentioned the other day I detested Heath for his politics but I would challenge anyone with a soul not to feel a huge wave of empathy when you saw him in interviews being forced to talk about his private life.
YS is just a nasty piece of work.
This is how I feel. Despite being on the left I see May as being clunky but a pretty moderate Tory in the scheme of things. Corbyn's lot are complete ideologues.
She saved us from Leadsome.
Maybe we ultimately need a true beleaver in charge to properly take ownership of the situation.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
By any measure of basic voting she was more popular than Cameron.
OGH & TSE tie themselves in no end of knots trying to wish this away.
Yes of course what ultimately matters is how many seats you get - but how would Cameron (let alone Osborne) have done against a Corbyn 2017?
A Tory majority.
They would have fought on the economy and nailed Corbyn on it.
They would have reminded the country of Liam Byrne’s note.
Mrs May didn’t mention it.
The Cameron of 2015 would have. The Cameron of 2016 had blown all his political credit and was polling little if any better than Corbyn. He would certainly have fought a far better campaign than May but he'd have been starting from much further back (and as such, wouldn't have called an election in the first place.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
By any measure of basic voting she was more popular than Cameron.
OGH & TSE tie themselves in no end of knots trying to wish this away.
Yes of course what ultimately matters is how many seats you get - but how would Cameron (let alone Osborne) have done against a Corbyn 2017?
A Tory majority.
They would have fought on the economy and nailed Corbyn on it.
They would have reminded the country of Liam Byrne’s note.
Mrs May didn’t mention it.
The Cameron of 2015 would have. The Cameron of 2016 had blown all his political credit and was polling little if any better than Corbyn. He would certainly have fought a far better campaign than May but he'd have been starting from much further back (and as such, wouldn't have called an election in the first place.
What proportion of these anonymous anecdotes are made up?
There have been loads since the election but very little in the way of an actual challenge... I'm not saying it won't happen - but what are the Tories waiting for?
Is it just that resentment of Boris and not wanting him to be PM means they will support TM?
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
I was only joking.
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
Boris as PM will be a bigger disaster than Theresa May.
If Mrs May had gotten to know her party better, she would have realised how badly the dementia tax would go down with Tory voters.
Perhaps May and Osborne both need to get to know their party better.
He already knew it well enough, it explains why he helped take the Tories from 198 seats to 331 seats, and Mrs May took the party backwards.
May's seat loss was substantially down to Osborne's austerity.
So how’d you explain the Tory seat gains in 2015? Osborne’s austerity ?
Whilst of course seats are the most important thing for winning an election, they are no judge of popularity or support, at least not in the way you try to use them.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
She also managed to reawaken the anti-Tory mob that Cameron had kept quiet, a more useful comparison is Dave’s leads over Labour in both pure votes and percentages.
By any measure of basic voting she was more popular than Cameron.
OGH & TSE tie themselves in no end of knots trying to wish this away.
Yes of course what ultimately matters is how many seats you get - but how would Cameron (let alone Osborne) have done against a Corbyn 2017?
A Tory majority.
They would have fought on the economy and nailed Corbyn on it.
They would have reminded the country of Liam Byrne’s note.
Mrs May didn’t mention it.
The Cameron of 2015 would have. The Cameron of 2016 had blown all his political credit and was polling little if any better than Corbyn. He would certainly have fought a far better campaign than May but he'd have been starting from much further back (and as such, wouldn't have called an election in the first place.
Brexit changed everything. Counterfactual
Indeed. In a counterfactual universe Cameron would have carried on to mitigate the effects of Leaving.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
I was only joking.
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
Boris as PM will be a bigger disaster than Theresa May.
Trust me, trust JohnO, trust Michael Gove.
Hoe does this ministry sound to you:
PM- Boris
CotE - Gove
Foreign Sec - JRM
Home Sec - Priti
Would you tear up your membership card?
Awful. Just awful.
I’d remain a member but wouldn’t campaign for it until we returned to sanity.
What proportion of these anonymous anecdotes are made up?
There have been loads since the election but very little in the way of an actual challenge... I'm not saying it won't happen - but what are the Tories waiting for?
Is it just that resentment of Boris and not wanting him to be PM means they will support TM?
It's more than that. A leadership contest could well lead to one (or more) of the following:
1) An irrevocable split in the Tory Party 2) The collapse of the Brexit talks 3) A Corbyn-led government 4) Another general election
which put on 2.3 million votes......I don't argue that the campaign will go down in history as a classic "how not to do it".....and yet, despite that, they still got more than 2 million more votes....
There's brown bread, white bread All sorts of wholemeal bread It comes in funny packages With writing on the side But it doesn't matter which one you have 'Cause when you cut the crusts off Have it with marmalade Or butter, cheese, tomatoes, beans, banana Or chocolate if you're strange It doesn't really matter
Comments
As I mentioned the other day I detested Heath for his politics but I would challenge anyone with a soul not to feel a huge wave of empathy when you saw him in interviews being forced to talk about his private life.
YS is just a nasty piece of work.
That's not my point: my point is that the UK will continue to be important to the EU after we Leave.
That's a true a statement as the other way round.
The EU wants to think of itself as the European equivalent of the US but, sadly, lacks a real understanding of what has made the US Constitution and political settlement as successful and long-standing as it is.
That is why you get someone like Juncker making a State of the Union address, echoing what the US President does, but utterly lacking the essential ingredient, namely, election by the voters of that President.
If I were the Tories, I would be pointing out how unreasonable the EU was being on the ECJ. On Ireland and money, it's hard to see who is right. On citizens rights, it is ridiculous to demand EU courts have power over EU citizens in the UK but not vice versa.
I don't think the EU wants to take over the world, I think they just want to be the EU: a close-knit group of neighbouring nations with shared values and approach to a range of issues. They would even have tolerated a two-speed such group but we decided against it.
They don't "need" to do anything because on March 20th 2019 they will still be the EU with some changes here and there.
We will leave *the* customs union and *the* single market, we will have fisheries, agriculture, regional policy repatriated, free movement will end, as well as the ECJ formally.
We will shadow the EU in a large number of regulatory areas (but not all) and follow
ECJ case law. We will not in all. We will have control over free movement, whilst setting
generous quotas and visas to EU citizens. We will decide our own fisheries policy whilst setting access/quotas with our neighbours on new terms. We will formally leave the customs union and do new trade deals elsewhere whilst trying to closely align our customs arrangements with the EU. We will save some money. We will try and align our foreign /defence policy with the EU but not within EU structures.
It will be Good Enough.
The question is how much blood has to be waded through on each side to get there.
What wasn't accepted was just brushing off the economy like it didn't matter. People are prepared to accept austerity when it is "part of the plan" and viewed as necessary, May and Hammond didn't bother to fight for it though.
The 16-17% of their chunk they just lost (so they are now 83-84%) is still going to be sitting on their doorstep.
It does not disappear. Therefore, it matters.
Come 2016 and polling stations were full of people being told what they had to do for they had either never voted before or had rarely done so...
Equally the first real obvious council budget cuts only appeared round here in April 2015 as councils cancel and scrap anything and everything they aren't legally required to do....
I think EIRE is going to need a special status inside the EU to make this work, and the UK is going to have to have something special for NI within the UK.
I think a 'medium' recession would actually be very damaging to the government. Hurts them on their economic credibility (where they currently still lead Labour).
And after very little growth for the past 10 years to go back into recession will look disastrous.
There is no reason that a federal EU could not operate that way.
In 2010 Cameron got 10,703,754 votes
In 2015 he got 11,334,226 votes
A modest improvement of around 600,000 votes.
In 2017 May got 13,669,883 votes
Don't ask me how as I don't rate her at all. But the fact is she increased Tory support by over 2.3 million votes in two years. On that basic measure she was clearly far more popular than Cameron.
Have Ryanair staff been channeling the Tories?
“To overthrow this structure will require immense force of will, stamina and commitment from every pilot,” the letter read.
“It is entirely possible that things will get worse before they get any better. Expect management to fight any change by all means available to them. There will be casualties.
“To paraphrase Churchill: Let us make sure future colleagues look back and say: ‘This was their finest hour’.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4948528/Twelve-men-charged-Rotherham-sex-investigation.html
I like Boris and as an "outsider" to the Tory Party it looks like a "no-brainer" for him to take over from Theresa like yesterday...
Trust me, trust JohnO, trust Michael Gove.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/75196/david-cameron-boris-johnson
Almost all of the 48% will have voted that way because they thought it was best economically, if it wasn't for the economy Leave would have been even further in the lead. Very few voted Remain despite the economy.
While a large portion of the 52% voted that way because they thought it was best economically, whether it be the £350 million a week gross befpre rebate that we send to the EU or the ability to sign our own trade deals outside the EU etc
The economy still matters.
You are the reason why the Tories are struggling to beat Corbyn, you won't accept why the Tories won in 2015 thanks to Dave and George.
Yes of course what ultimately matters is how many seats you get - but how would Cameron (let alone Osborne) have done against a Corbyn 2017?
I've been suggesting this for months.
The problem as I see is not that Mrs May isn't popular; its that the left have finally decided to play fantasy politics at exactly the time when people are wanting to believe it is that easy...
They would have fought on the economy and nailed Corbyn on it.
They would have reminded the country of Liam Byrne’s note.
Mrs May didn’t mention it.
Her speech was excellent up to and including the protester but the cold and cough she has been carrying this week overwhelmed her and her message became more difficult to follow
I do not think it was the diabetes but this can add to the problem
She has moved towards the left on some policies but that is necessary. She is walking a very difficult path between remain and leave and really it is almost impossible for any of the current politicians across the parties to do any better.
I do have reservation about Theresa but the fact she had a bad cold and cough is not one of them.
Tory votes 2015: 11,334,226
They made some mistakes in 2010 and had a better time in 2015, but neither came anywhere near close to the catastrophic litany of idiocy and ill-judgement that was the 2017 campaign.
Just TMay just have bad luck? I mean: a cold, letters alling down, a comedian sneaking through.
Exactly which parts of this her ault?
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/915597216483500032
This can't go on for much longer.
Counterfactual
There have been loads since the election but very little in the way of an actual challenge... I'm not saying it won't happen - but what are the Tories waiting for?
Is it just that resentment of Boris and not wanting him to be PM means they will support TM?
No not Mrs May's conference speech, the launch of new Google Pixel products.
PM- Boris
CotE - Gove
Foreign Sec - JRM
Home Sec - Priti
David Davis - Brexit Sec
Would you tear up your membership card?
I’d remain a member but wouldn’t campaign for it until we returned to sanity.
1) An irrevocable split in the Tory Party
2) The collapse of the Brexit talks
3) A Corbyn-led government
4) Another general election
If the prankster used a BBC pass, or was vouched for by the BBC, then I would have thought it was they who should be answering searching questions.
(I’ve no particularly brief to defend Theresa May, I think she should go)
But, if journalists are to be allowed access to politicians & passes to conferences, then news organisations need to behave responsibly.
All sorts of wholemeal bread
It comes in funny packages
With writing on the side
But it doesn't matter which one you have
'Cause when you cut the crusts off
Have it with marmalade
Or butter, cheese, tomatoes, beans, banana
Or chocolate if you're strange
It doesn't really matter
Miss Vance, vote share is irrelevant. Seats are what count. Worth remembering that 10,000 changed either way would've utterly transformed the result.