But in that case, I see little point in another referendum. Government position or WTO? Who cares? would win.
No need to apologise to me, my friend, just calling it as I see it as we all do on here.
You may be right but I think those seeking to reject the A50 Treaty will need to explain fully what the consequences of so doing would be while those who support the A50 Treaty will need to spell out just how "outside" the EU we would be in truth.
The A50 Treaty will need to go hand in hand with the new immigration proposals (which will be interesting). The Prime Minister's language was positive on Brexit yesterday but fine words butter no parsnips. The majority, I hope, want us to have a strong and constructive relationship with the EU post-membership (I certainly do) but the Devil will be in the detail and if aspects of that relationship smack of EU jurisdiction or interference there will be a backlash.
Mr. Cwsc, indeed, Sky's economics editor wibbling endlessly about first class rail tickets when he had a Budget Day interview with the Chancellor was pathetic.
" Researchers said drugs were being passed for use across Europe on the basis of indirect measures - such as showing that medication had a biological effect on the body - rather than actual proof they could benefit patients. "
And for those who cite May's unnecessarily harsh treatment of him: nobody forced him out of the Commons. Osborne left of his own accord.
The bigger error was taking on the Standard job. Not only did that of itself probably force him out but the way he's used it has meant that he has no political future. Had he left to do business and academic stuff, he'd be the King Over The Water, much as David Miliband was for Labour, for so long. After all, there are usually by-elections sooner or later.
Nah, he already knew his political career was over.
He’s a democrat and would respect the result but he couldn’t trash the economy whilst delivering the Brexit demanded by the vote.
I don't really follow that? He wouldn't have been Chancellor again under May so how could have have 'trashed the economy', other than as a collective exercise (for which he takes a fair share of blame anyway for messing up the Remain campaign). Even if he'd stayed in parliament, he wouldn't necessarily be back in government. Either way, though, without his vitriolic behaviour at the Standard, he'd still be available.
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
And for those who cite May's unnecessarily harsh treatment of him: nobody forced him out of the Commons. Osborne left of his own accord.
The bigger error was taking on the Standard job. Not only did that of itself probably force him out but the way he's used it has meant that he has no political future. Had he left to do business and academic stuff, he'd be the King Over The Water, much as David Miliband was for Labour, for so long. After all, there are usually by-elections sooner or later.
Nah, he already knew his political career was over.
He’s a democrat and would respect the result but he couldn’t trash the economy whilst delivering the Brexit demanded by the vote.
I don't really follow that? He wouldn't have been Chancellor again under May so how could have have 'trashed the economy', other than as a collective exercise (for which he takes a fair share of blame anyway for messing up the Remain campaign). Even if he'd stayed in parliament, he wouldn't necessarily be back in government. Either way, though, without his vitriolic behaviour at the Standard, he'd still be available.
I meant him as PM. He’d have to oversee Brexit and he’d struggle to deliver on it.
Best you would have got out of him is BINO, and he knew that would be untenable.
"Boris’s chances are now rated at close to zero after this week"
" And while May is wounded, Boris’s leadership hopes look dead in the water. Some on the backbench 1922 Committee want a formal reprimand to be issued, others just want him sacked."
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
I see the bbc have finally caught up with the guardians report of several days ago on the ted heath investigation. The Guardian one actually mentioned the low threshold that is 'grounds to suspect' (a rather weak outcome after millions and years ) and it also explained how
They'd question him, maybe, if he were alive, that's it. That is them spinning that he's guilt but they are able to prove it.
The report will be interesting - if the Guardian are right about how the investigation was conducted, which essentially biases investigators from the off and places the burden on the accused to prove innocence, then it truly was a colossal waste. For their sake I hope there was more to it.
I have no issue with a claim being investigated, and thoroughly too given the implications. Even in the case of being so historic and thus hard to prove , and even if the subject is dead, if an allegation is serious enough some level of investigation may be warranted. Of course, one must question how much time and money can be afforded to not given other priorities.
But the claims need to be substantive, there needs to be corroboration, and most vitally the investigation needs to be properly conducted. The unacceptability of an approach which presumes guilt and biases investigators as detailed by the Henriques report really stuck with me. The automatically believing alleged victims and making people, who are in this case dead, needing to prove innocence, is abhorrent to the very idea of proper procedure, and the Guardian report, though not negative, indicated by detail they used that approach.
That 'grounds to suspect' is such a low barrier but will be taken as proof of guilt is very sad.
4 points:-
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
ii) No Tories in Scotland - proportionately more than Labour or the Lib Dems
That jumped out at me at first, but I assume 5% of total Lab membership is probably greater than 10% of Con membership. Aren't Lab claiming some humungous number for their membership?
That's almost certainly fair - in absolute terms - but the 'Labour youth surge' does not appear to be borne out by these figures. And also the days of 'Scottish hegemony in the Labour Party' are probably behind us.....
Jesus christ guy on sky now recounting an allegation but to him about heath that he managed to point out couldn't be true as at the home it wasn't physically possible, only for the plod to admit they had never even been the location.
It reminds me of the guy who played ken barlow, when it got to trial there was a huge number of problems like this with regards to properties he never had access to on days he was filming using cars he never owned.
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
Perhaps the question should not be who but how. The best way I can see to skewer Boris in a leadership election would be for David Davis to denounce his approach to Brexit (and implicitly pour cold water on the case for Brexit itself).
My view: the demographics facts combined with the political fallout of Brexit mean that we're probably 80%+ certain to lose the next GE whatever.
So, I want the most technically competent and resilient PM possible to steer us through and out the other side.
We'll then have to pick up whatever mess Corbyn/McDonnell makes and fix that thereafter, hopefully after only 5 years, but it might be 10 years sadly.
That for me gives two choices to replace TM: Jeremy Hunt, and Michael Gove.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
After 38 years of Thatcherism, it's a return to economic moderation and an acknowledgement of the need for a mixed economy. May seems to acknowledge this, although it seems she'd happily reinvent the Stasi if she could get it through Parliament and the Lords.
For One Nation Tories, try Allen, Wollaston, Stewart or Soubry ... given that Heseltine, Clarke or Patten are too old.
May has promised 5,000 council houses per year, I believe. Harold Macmillan delivered roughly 150,000. His party criticised Labour for not doing enough ... and did more.
I agree with you, this is the worst Government and Opposition I can remember. A dim, hard- left Trot with an inflexible mind, and a woman lacking confidence, political ability or judgement.
BTW, yesterday at Conference was irrelevant. She had a cough, a nutter in the crowd made a childish gesture, and a set misbehaved. Which ones were her fault? None of them.
Catalonia receives sympathy for holding an illegal referendum and wishing for freedom from the larger state. The LDs demand we stay in the EU despite a legal referendum voting to leave. And they call themselves Democrats.
i) The Tories are pensioners - average ages are within 10% of each other across the Parties ii) No Tories in Scotland - proportionately more than Labour or the Lib Dems iii) Labour is a 'London/M25' Party - its the least represented in London/South East of the national parties. iv) The Tories are the London/South East Party - not when the Lib Dems have 60% of their members there. v) Labour is the Party of the young - really, with 16% of their members under 34 while the Tories have 14% and the LD's 20%?
So there 'is' no referendum then. Why woulf anyone campaign to give people what they see as a 'bad' option, and a terrible 'option.
That makes no sense.
No, the "campaign" is two-fold, one to get the referendum and two to ensure the option to remain in the EU is on the ballot paper.
I have a number of problems with this hence my more semi-detached status with the party these days. MY main issue isn't about respecting the previous result - people change their minds between elections so presumably can between referenda. The problem is no one can shown me where, within A50, there is provision for rejecting a treaty and remaining within the EU.
As to "bad" and "terrible" - depends who you talk to. There are those who would rather crash out now with WTO, start negotiating new FTAs and begin creating "Global Britain". If the negotiated treaty sounds too much like continuing membership (BINO in other words), I suspect there will be plenty who will oppose it.
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
Jimmy Saville was not tried, but was clearly not innocent and it was not a waste of time investigating what happened.
"Boris’s chances are now rated at close to zero after this week"
" And while May is wounded, Boris’s leadership hopes look dead in the water. Some on the backbench 1922 Committee want a formal reprimand to be issued, others just want him sacked."
So in one thread we are discussing the way 2 out of the 3 Bullingdon boys have torpedoed their own potentially stellar careers, with a real possibility of No. 10, by pointless infantile twattery. At least it shows we got the right one as PM.
Mr. Jonathan, that doesn't make believing any allegation and investigating any claim, even ones that seem clearly spurious, sensible behaviour by the police.
I agree with you, this is the worst Government and Opposition I can remember. A dim, hard- left Trot with an inflexible mind, and a woman lacking confidence, political ability or judgement.
BTW, yesterday at Conference was irrelevant. She had a cough, a nutter in the crowd made a childish gesture, and a set misbehaved. Which ones were her fault? None of them.
Catalonia receives sympathy for holding an illegal referendum and wishing for freedom from the larger state. The LDs demand we stay in the EU despite a legal referendum voting to leave. And they call themselves Democrats.
Vote for NOTA!
"The LDs demand we stay in the EU despite a legal referendum voting to leave."
That's factually incorrect. As I understand it they want a new referendum on the deal once it has been agreed between the UK and EU. You can disagree with that, but they are asking for MORE democracy.
Can anyone answer the question to me what happens if we vote no in that referendum?
Depends whet the question is. Could be: Do you a) Accept the deal negotiated by HMG and the EU. (Alternatively do you want to crash out to WTO rules) b) Instruct HMG to withdraw A50.
c) Run this referendum under AV
Yes, I agree with TSE who put it much better than I did:
A ) Remain on our current terms
B ) Leave on the proposed deal
C ) Leave no matter what, replete with WTO Brexit
Conducted under AV of course.
Conducted under AV because that's the only chance a Leave option would have of winning this particular vote imo. It's not going to happen though is it.
So you don't think the majority view should win?
Shouldn't there also be an option of remain on the same terms as now or remain on the terms the EU decides to allow for us as we have already triggered article 50?
So Vince isn't in favour of a second referendum with an option to stay? If that's the case, I apologise.
If he is, then apart from being bad UK politics, it greatly encourages the EU to give no ground whatsoever in negotiations.
No, I'm sure the LDs want a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations (calling it a "second" referendum makes it sound like an exact repeat of the first which it isn't).
So do I.
The problem is there is no provision within the A50 process for an option to remain within the EU. We have triggered A50 - we will leave on 29/3/19. The referendum would only be about the terms on which we leave which are either the A50 treaty as put forward by the Government or to leave without an agreement and all that entails.
That's why calling it a "second referendum" is disingenuous. It's not about whether we leave or remain within the EU - that has been settled - but the basis on which we depart - agreed treaty or crash out to WTO.
That is not true. The Lib Dems said in their manifesto that any second referendum should include the option to abandon Brexit entirely and stay in the EU. It is not just about what sort of Brexit we have but whether we Brexit at all.
So Vince isn't in favour of a second referendum with an option to stay? If that's the case, I apologise.
If he is, then apart from being bad UK politics, it greatly encourages the EU to give no ground whatsoever in negotiations.
No, I'm sure the LDs want a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations (calling it a "second" referendum makes it sound like an exact repeat of the first which it isn't).
So do I.
The problem is there is no provision within the A50 process for an option to remain within the EU. We have triggered A50 - we will leave on 29/3/19. The referendum would only be about the terms on which we leave which are either the A50 treaty as put forward by the Government or to leave without an agreement and all that entails.
That's why calling it a "second referendum" is disingenuous. It's not about whether we leave or remain within the EU - that has been settled - but the basis on which we depart - agreed treaty or crash out to WTO.
Politics is The Art of The Possible - and of course it's possible for the UK to stay in the EU if that is what is wanted.
"Key European figures this week dropped the biggest hints yet, that the European Union would allow Britain to delay or cancel Brexit altogether by reversing Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty." http://uk.businessinsider.com/can-brexit-be-reversed-2017-6
Yeah. That's bollocks though without legal backup. Fact is that none of the Council, Parliament or Commission can unilaterally and definitively agree to cancel Brexit agrees (though the Council can indefinitely 'delay' it).
From my reading of A50, it's clear that there's no reverse gear. The logic of the Article also tends to that conclusion (if it was revocable, a member leaving could play hokey-cokey until they got the deal they wanted). The mechanism for leaving is defined in the Treaty so the Vienna Convention doesn't kick in.
Suppose Britain did want to reverse Brexit (leave aside the domestic implications here), and that the EU was amenable to that request. March 2019 comes and goes and a UK business flouts an EU law. It is prosecuted and the case is referred to the ECJ which finds that a political agreement cannot override a Treaty and that, as such, under A50, Britain is no longer a member and so the Court does not have the power to hear the case. All hell then breaks lose.
I agree with you, this is the worst Government and Opposition I can remember. A dim, hard- left Trot with an inflexible mind, and a woman lacking confidence, political ability or judgement.
BTW, yesterday at Conference was irrelevant. She had a cough, a nutter in the crowd made a childish gesture, and a set misbehaved. Which ones were her fault? None of them.
Catalonia receives sympathy for holding an illegal referendum and wishing for freedom from the larger state. The LDs demand we stay in the EU despite a legal referendum voting to leave. And they call themselves Democrats.
i) The Tories are pensioners - average ages are within 10% of each other across the Parties ii) No Tories in Scotland - proportionately more than Labour or the Lib Dems iii) Labour is a 'London/M25' Party - its the least represented in London/South East of the national parties. iv) The Tories are the London/South East Party - not when the Lib Dems have 60% of their members there. v) Labour is the Party of the young - really, with 16% of their members under 34 while the Tories have 14% and the LD's 20%?
These are percentages which can be deceptive.
The Tory, Lib Dem and SNP membership numbers are all broadly similiar. The one set of numbers that can't be compared here is Labour, they have more members than the Lib Dems, Tories and SNP combined - and then some.
So there 'is' no referendum then. Why woulf anyone campaign to give people what they see as a 'bad' option, and a terrible 'option.
That makes no sense.
No, the "campaign" is two-fold, one to get the referendum and two to ensure the option to remain in the EU is on the ballot paper.
I have a number of problems with this hence my more semi-detached status with the party these days. MY main issue isn't about respecting the previous result - people change their minds between elections so presumably can between referenda. The problem is no one can shown me where, within A50, there is provision for rejecting a treaty and remaining within the EU.
As to "bad" and "terrible" - depends who you talk to. There are those who would rather crash out now with WTO, start negotiating new FTAs and begin creating "Global Britain". If the negotiated treaty sounds too much like continuing membership (BINO in other words), I suspect there will be plenty who will oppose it.
I think May will cave but won't get it through the Commons.
I agree with you, this is the worst Government and Opposition I can remember. A dim, hard- left Trot with an inflexible mind, and a woman lacking confidence, political ability or judgement.
BTW, yesterday at Conference was irrelevant. She had a cough, a nutter in the crowd made a childish gesture, and a set misbehaved. Which ones were her fault? None of them.
Catalonia receives sympathy for holding an illegal referendum and wishing for freedom from the larger state. The LDs demand we stay in the EU despite a legal referendum voting to leave. And they call themselves Democrats.
Vote for NOTA!
"The LDs demand we stay in the EU despite a legal referendum voting to leave."
That's factually incorrect. As I understand it they want a new referendum on the deal once it has been agreed between the UK and EU. You can disagree with that, but they are asking for MORE democracy.
Can anyone answer the question to me what happens if we vote no in that referendum?
Depends whet the question is. Could be: Do you a) Accept the deal negotiated by HMG and the EU. (Alternatively do you want to crash out to WTO rules) b) Instruct HMG to withdraw A50.
The question could be:
Do you accept the new relationship with the EU that is on the table, or Do you instruct the U.K. Government to accept the continuation of the A50 process and bring forward any different proposal at a future date?
This assumes that the rest of the EU offers a continuation of A50 sine die in anticipation of a parliamentary majority in 2022 or earlier that will have been elected on a vague manifesto commitment to keep exploring options for a new relationship with the EU whilst remaining a member.
And for those who cite May's unnecessarily harsh treatment of him: nobody forced him out of the Commons. Osborne left of his own accord.
The bigger error was taking on the Standard job. Not only did that of itself probably force him out but the way he's used it has meant that he has no political future. Had he left to do business and academic stuff, he'd be the King Over The Water, much as David Miliband was for Labour, for so long. After all, there are usually by-elections sooner or later.
Nah, he already knew his political career was over.
He’s a democrat and would respect the result but he couldn’t trash the economy whilst delivering the Brexit demanded by the vote.
I don't really follow that? He wouldn't have been Chancellor again under May so how could have have 'trashed the economy', other than as a collective exercise (for which he takes a fair share of blame anyway for messing up the Remain campaign). Even if he'd stayed in parliament, he wouldn't necessarily be back in government. Either way, though, without his vitriolic behaviour at the Standard, he'd still be available.
I meant him as PM. He’d have to oversee Brexit and he’d struggle to deliver on it.
Best you would have got out of him is BINO, and he knew that would be untenable.
Yes, Osborne had form.
The trouble was he thought everyone else was as stupid as he was clever.
His "halved the bill" nonsense fooled no-one, yet he was happy to say it with a perfectly straight face.
Without a 'cast iron' guarantee from the EU that Brexit could be reversed with no consequences, any second referendum is pie in the sky.
You can't turn back time so consequences are inevitable, not least that it will never again be an acceptable mainstream view that leaving the EU would be a good idea.
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
They don't need to keep him off, but they do need to give the membership a credible alternative. Remember the YouGov polling showed Theresa May beating him.
So Vince isn't in favour of a second referendum with an option to stay? If that's the case, I apologise.
If he is, then apart from being bad UK politics, it greatly encourages the EU to give no ground whatsoever in negotiations.
No, I'm sure the LDs want a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations (calling it a "second" referendum makes it sound like an exact repeat of the first which it isn't).
So do I.
The problem is there is no provision within the A50 process for an option to remain within the EU. We have triggered A50 - we will leave on 29/3/19. The referendum would only be about the terms on which we leave which are either the A50 treaty as put forward by the Government or to leave without an agreement and all that entails.
That's why calling it a "second referendum" is disingenuous. It's not about whether we leave or remain within the EU - that has been settled - but the basis on which we depart - agreed treaty or crash out to WTO.
Politics is The Art of The Possible - and of course it's possible for the UK to stay in the EU if that is what is wanted.
"Key European figures this week dropped the biggest hints yet, that the European Union would allow Britain to delay or cancel Brexit altogether by reversing Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty." http://uk.businessinsider.com/can-brexit-be-reversed-2017-6
Yeah. That's bollocks though without legal backup. Fact is that none of the Council, Parliament or Commission can unilaterally and definitively agree to cancel Brexit agrees (though the Council can indefinitely 'delay' it).
From my reading of A50, it's clear that there's no reverse gear. The logic of the Article also tends to that conclusion (if it was revocable, a member leaving could play hokey-cokey until they got the deal they wanted). The mechanism for leaving is defined in the Treaty so the Vienna Convention doesn't kick in.
Suppose Britain did want to reverse Brexit (leave aside the domestic implications here), and that the EU was amenable to that request. March 2019 comes and goes and a UK business flouts an EU law. It is prosecuted and the case is referred to the ECJ which finds that a political agreement cannot override a Treaty and that, as such, under A50, Britain is no longer a member and so the Court does not have the power to hear the case. All hell then breaks lose.
Are you saying that the EU can't change their rules if they want to?
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
It seems to me if you provide unrestricted access to guns, you are basically accepting mass shootings as a fact of life. The motivation of any particular killer is a secondary matter.
A bit like traffic casualties as an acceptable price for personal transport .... if you were to abolish all traffic laws.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Sure, he wont get it. But if you want an experienced, competent caretaker he's your man, despite his age. He has more mojo than the cabinet.
The problem is you don't want competence, you want ideological purity or at the very least a blank sheet.
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
Jimmy Saville was not tried, but was clearly not innocent and it was not a waste of time investigating what happened.
“Clearly not innocent”? The allegations against him remain - as a matter of law - allegations. An investigation into why someone against whom there were suspicions and rumours was allowed access to hospitals etc was certainly worthwhile but that is a very different sort of investigation to one establishing evidence to be taken to a court of law.
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
They don't need to keep him off, but they do need to give the membership a credible alternative. Remember the YouGov polling showed Theresa May beating him.
I don't think that 'a credible alternative' would be enough. Boris easily win a leadership election against anyone. He is the best campaigner in the party. He'd be the 'sixth tequila' choice - you knew it wasn't really a good idea at the time but still did it because ... hey, it was there - but by the time the hangover came, it'd be too late.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
I see the bbc have finally caught up with the guardians report of several days ago on the ted heath investigation. The Guardian one actually mentioned the low threshold that is 'grounds to suspect' (a rather weak outcome after millions and years ) and it also explained how
They'd question him, maybe, if he were alive, that's it. That is them spinning that he's guilt but they are able to prove it.
The report will be interesting - if the Guardian are right about how the investigation was conducted, which essentially biases investigators from the off and places the burden on the accused to prove innocence, then it truly was a colossal waste. For their sake I hope there was more to it.
....
That 'grounds to suspect' is such a low barrier but will be taken as proof of guilt is very sad.
4 points:-
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
Agreed. I'd add that the latest police pronouncements on the Heath case 'would have been interviewed under caution' ought perhaps to be considered in light of the Lord Bramall case - interviewed under caution, and recently paid £100k compensation.
It seems to me if you provide unrestricted access to guns, you are basically accepting mass shootings as a fact of life. The motivation of any particular killer is a secondary matter.
A bit like traffic casualties as an acceptable price for personal transport .... if you were to abolish all traffic laws.
Except personal transport has huge social utility, 30 round assault rifles, not so much.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
You know perfectly well that Ken Clarke is too Europhile to lead the Tory Party. And he's too old now - I'd question just how effective he'd actually be.
I know it's not in your interests to do so, but you need to try and divorce your own personal view of your favourite Tory (or least disliked Tory) as a core Labour supporter, with which leader would be in the best electoral interests of the Tory Party.
I recognise that requires high levels of cognitive dissonance and dispassionate objectivity, however.
Its a good job Mrs may wasn't hiding back there with you... a painting would have dropped off the wall onto your head and the sofa collapsed on top of you.
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
That non exec position on the Monsanto board won't buy itself for Fox.
So Vince isn't in favour of a second referendum with an option to stay? If that's the case, I apologise.
If he is, then apart from being bad UK politics, it greatly encourages the EU to give no ground whatsoever in negotiations.
No, I'm sure the LDs want a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations (calling it a "second" referendum makes it sound like an exact repeat of the first which it isn't).
So do I.
The problem is there is no provision within the A50 process for an option to remain within the EU. We have triggered A50 - we will leave on 29/3/19. The referendum would only be about the terms on which we leave which are either the A50 treaty as put forward by the Government or to leave without an agreement and all that entails.
That's why calling it a "second referendum" is disingenuous. It's not about whether we leave or remain within the EU - that has been settled - but the basis on which we depart - agreed treaty or crash out to WTO.
Politics is The Art of The Possible - and of course it's possible for the UK to stay in the EU if that is what is wanted.
"Key European figures this week dropped the biggest hints yet, that the European Union would allow Britain to delay or cancel Brexit altogether by reversing Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty." http://uk.businessinsider.com/can-brexit-be-reversed-2017-6
Yeah. That's bollocks though without legal backup. Fact is that none of the Council, Parliament or Commission can unilaterally and definitively agree to cancel Brexit agrees (though the Council can indefinitely 'delay' it).
From my reading of A50, it's clear that there's no reverse gear. The logic of the Article also tends to that conclusion (if it was revocable, a member leaving could play hokey-cokey until they got the deal they wanted). The mechanism for leaving is defined in the Treaty so the Vienna Convention doesn't kick in.
Suppose Britain did want to reverse Brexit (leave aside the domestic implications here), and that the EU was amenable to that request. March 2019 comes and goes and a UK business flouts an EU law. It is prosecuted and the case is referred to the ECJ which finds that a political agreement cannot override a Treaty and that, as such, under A50, Britain is no longer a member and so the Court does not have the power to hear the case. All hell then breaks lose.
Are you saying that the EU can't change their rules if they want to?
On the substance of a Treaty, yes (or not without a treaty change, which'd be almost impossible to do within the timeframe). This isn't about diplomatically finessing a definition through the Council.
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
They don't need to keep him off, but they do need to give the membership a credible alternative. Remember the YouGov polling showed Theresa May beating him.
I don't think that 'a credible alternative' would be enough. Boris easily win a leadership election against anyone. He is the best campaigner in the party. He'd be the 'sixth tequila' choice - you knew it wasn't really a good idea at the time but still did it because ... hey, it was there - but by the time the hangover came, it'd be too late.
I'm not at all convinced that he will. But then I don't think he'll make the final two anyway, so it may well prove moot. My betting tip would be David Davis.
I see the bbc have finally caught up with the guardians report of several days ago on the ted heath investigation. The Guardian one actually mentioned the low threshold that is 'grounds to suspect' (a rather weak outcome after millions and years ) and it also explained how
They'd question him, maybe, if he were alive, that's it. That is them spinning that he's guilt but they are able to prove it.
The report will be interesting - if the Guardian are right about how the investigation was conducted, which essentially biases investigators from the off and places the burden on the accused to prove innocence, then it truly was a colossal waste. For their sake I hope there was more to it.
I have no issue with a claim being investigated, and thoroughly too given the implications. Even in the case of being so historic and thus hard to prove , and even if the subject is dead, if an allegation is serious enough some level of investigation may be warranted. Of course, one must question how much time and money can be afforded to not given other priorities.
But the claims need to be substantive, there needs to be corroboration,
That 'grounds to suspect' is such a low barrier but will be taken as proof of guilt is very sad.
4 points:-
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
The first two points are why the advice on investigating these things was changed. Some police maintained that they were worried people would not come forward if they thought they might not be believed, but as the judge put it, replacing something inadequate, ignoring complaints, with something even more inadequate is no solution. As you say they are investigators, and the job includes looking at veracity of allegations
It seems to me if you provide unrestricted access to guns, you are basically accepting mass shootings as a fact of life. The motivation of any particular killer is a secondary matter.
A bit like traffic casualties as an acceptable price for personal transport .... if you were to abolish all traffic laws.
Except personal transport has huge social utility, 30 round assault rifles, not so much.
Without a 'cast iron' guarantee from the EU that Brexit could be reversed with no consequences, any second referendum is pie in the sky.
You can't turn back time so consequences are inevitable, not least that it will never again be an acceptable mainstream view that leaving the EU would be a good idea.
No, fundamentally if we had to remain in the EU, and the EU changes to be more federal and the creation of a USofE was on the cards, then that would be very questionable to a large number of people in the country.
That was also a large factor behind the 'Out' vote which people are overlooking, it's not just about what the EU is now, it's what its on the path to becoming.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
They don't need to keep him off, but they do need to give the membership a credible alternative. Remember the YouGov polling showed Theresa May beating him.
I don't think that 'a credible alternative' would be enough. Boris easily win a leadership election against anyone. He is the best campaigner in the party. He'd be the 'sixth tequila' choice - you knew it wasn't really a good idea at the time but still did it because ... hey, it was there - but by the time the hangover came, it'd be too late.
I'm not at all convinced that he will. But then I don't think he'll make the final two anyway, so it may well prove moot. My betting tip would be David Davis.
I appear to have accidentally deleted a crucial word there. I meant to write "Boris could easily win a leadership election against anyone" - by which I meant there was a decent chance of it, not that he would win easily.
Its a good job Mrs may wasn't hiding back there with you... a painting would have dropped off the wall onto your head and the sofa collapsed on top of you.
Surely the point is there is nowhere for these Police investigations to go. We don't try dead people. The CPS won't rule of whether they would have prosecuted if the person is still alive. Police investigations are the beginning of a chain but for dead people the rest of the chain doesn't exist. The eventual Police reports serve a function they were never intended to. In the absence of the rest of the system they are being read for signs of a verdict. Something they were never intended to.
Death is the ultimate Statute of Limitations. If we won't put dead people through due process we shouldn't put them through the first bit. Especially Libel law doesn't apply to the dead.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
So we're leaving the customs union. Where will the customs border with Ireland be?
Excellent news about Ted Heath. It proves that there is still a lot of money which can be saved from the police budget without the slightest impact on the prevention or investigation of crime.
In the event of a leadership contest soon, who are the Stop Boris candidates? The MPs would need two to prevent him going to the membership. They'd also need a little over 200 MPs on board to make it work, which might be tricky - not because there aren't 200+ MPs opposed to Boris but because not all of them will willingly game-play to keep him off.
They don't need to keep him off, but they do need to give the membership a credible alternative. Remember the YouGov polling showed Theresa May beating him.
I don't think that 'a credible alternative' would be enough. Boris easily win a leadership election against anyone. He is the best campaigner in the party. He'd be the 'sixth tequila' choice - you knew it wasn't really a good idea at the time but still did it because ... hey, it was there - but by the time the hangover came, it'd be too late.
I'm not at all convinced that he will. But then I don't think he'll make the final two anyway, so it may well prove moot. My betting tip would be David Davis.
I appear to have accidentally deleted a crucial word there. I meant to write "Boris could easily win a leadership election against anyone" - by which I meant there was a decent chance of it, not that he would win easily.
Ah! Yes, he could. Other would-be leaders need to note the things that he does well (i.e. optimism, not Latin).
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
You know perfectly well that Ken Clarke is too Europhile to lead the Tory Party. And he's too old now - I'd question just how effective he'd actually be.
I know it's not in your interests to do so, but you need to try and divorce your own personal view of your favourite Tory (or least disliked Tory) as a core Labour supporter, with which leader would be in the best electoral interests of the Tory Party.
I recognise that requires high levels of cognitive dissonance and dispassionate objectivity, however.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
You know perfectly well that Ken Clarke is too Europhile to lead the Tory Party. And he's too old now - I'd question just how effective he'd actually be...
Judging by his radio interview yesterday, he's still very much on the ball - considerably more so than May. And he also accepts that Brexit has to be delivered, one way or another.
Excellent news about Ted Heath. It proves that there is still a lot of money which can be saved from the police budget without the slightest impact on the prevention or investigation of crime.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
So we're leaving the customs union. Where will the customs border with Ireland be?
Same place as the one between Sweden and Norway, perhaps?
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
Jimmy Saville was not tried, but was clearly not innocent and it was not a waste of time investigating what happened.
“Clearly not innocent”? The allegations against him remain - as a matter of law - allegations. An investigation into why someone against whom there were suspicions and rumours was allowed access to hospitals etc was certainly worthwhile but that is a very different sort of investigation to one establishing evidence to be taken to a court of law.
But there's stacks of first hand evidence against him, easily enough that if it were an issue in other litigation it would be admissible and would succeed, certainly on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities). That is why his victims are successfully claiming against his estate; (I don't know whether any facts have been admitted or proved in connection with those claims, but the backdrop for those claims succeeding must be that the lawyers for the estate think the factual allegations could be proved if they needed to be). There is nothing special about the "presumption of innocence", it's just an instance of the general rule that he who alleges must prove.
Surely the point is there is nowhere for these Police investigations to go. We don't try dead people. The CPS won't rule of whether they would have prosecuted if the person is still alive. Police investigations are the beginning of a chain but for dead people the rest of the chain doesn't exist. The eventual Police reports serve a function they were never intended to. In the absence of the rest of the system they are being read for signs of a verdict. Something they were never intended to.
Death is the ultimate Statute of Limitations. If we won't put dead people through due process we shouldn't put them through the first bit. Especially Libel law doesn't apply to the dead.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
As long as there is a method to find out what may have happened do lessons can be learned where imputations are very serious, fine. Police resource time and money is precious, and years and millions to end up with 'wed have questioned them' suggests they didn't learn enough to justify the cost and the plug should have been pulled earlier.
No. We've at least 10 years of ' Greater Brexit ' left. It's why both Blair and now May have named Ruth Davidson as the Designated Survivor of British centrism.
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
So the idea that the UK-EU aren't already talking about trade is a charade, then?
FWIW, I'd have no problem in opening up our markets to Argentine Beef and New Zealand lamb (uber) as long as food standards were met.
The US, I agree, is a bit more of a concern. I'm happy to make it subject to consumer choice, but not to compromise on basic standards.
Excellent news about Ted Heath. It proves that there is still a lot of money which can be saved from the police budget without the slightest impact on the prevention or investigation of crime.
If they really do think Sir Edward was carrying out serious crimes for decades presumably they should be investigating all the people that must have "enabled" him to get away with it?
Starting with all his protection officers, chief constables of his local constabulary and the Met Police, etc. There must some people still alive that would've known what he as up to?
Unless of course there's no real evidence for these allegations at all and the Police are just dragging the name of one of our former PM's through the mud...
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
So we're leaving the customs union. Where will the customs border with Ireland be?
Same place as the one between Sweden and Norway, perhaps?
They have infrastructure on that border to do customs checks. The UK has ruled that out as incompatible with the GFA so you have a choice of:
- The RoI/NI border using magic - Between NI and GB - The UK as a whole stays in the customs union
1 is impossible, 2 means the de facto end of the UK, and 3 means no real Brexit.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
So we're leaving the customs union. Where will the customs border with Ireland be?
The EU will have to concede EIRE a special status within the EU. The UK will have to concede NI a special status within the UK.
I think there is a good chance that in the short term yesterday will improve her poll ratings as people sympathise with her human plight. I think the Nuremburg rally style triumphalism of the Corbynistas will do Labour more harm.
However it remains true that Tories will not want May to lead them into the next election because as an embitterered Thatcher said in 1990 after her MPs sacked her "Its a funny old world".
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
So we're leaving the customs union. Where will the customs border with Ireland be?
I think there is a good chance that in the short term yesterday will improve her poll ratings as people sympathise with her human plight. I think the Nuremburg rally style triumphalism of the Corbynistas will do Labour more harm.
However it remains true that Tories will not want May to lead them into the next election because as an embitterered Thatcher said in 1990 after her MPs sacked her "Its a funny old world".
Without a 'cast iron' guarantee from the EU that Brexit could be reversed with no consequences, any second referendum is pie in the sky.
You can't turn back time so consequences are inevitable, not least that it will never again be an acceptable mainstream view that leaving the EU would be a good idea.
In case you missed it, leaving the EU is more mainstream as an idea than it has ever been since we joined and there are no signs of that changing.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
What if they didn't act alone? Surely it's worth investigating for that reason.
Sure. But we could just dip sample the population and investigate constantly on that basis. How much crime would be detected if we just investigated 1% of the population in general every year.
I think there is a good chance that in the short term yesterday will improve her poll ratings as people sympathise with her human plight. I think the Nuremburg rally style triumphalism of the Corbynistas will do Labour more harm.
People may "sympathise" with her plight on a human level but I think it's very unlikely anybody would actually change their voting intention back to her.
If anything expect Labour to extend their poll lead.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
So we're leaving the customs union. Where will the customs border with Ireland be?
Same place as the one between Sweden and Norway, perhaps?
They have infrastructure on that border to do customs checks. The UK has ruled that out as incompatible with the GFA so you have a choice of:
- The RoI/NI border using magic - Between NI and GB - The UK as a whole stays in the customs union
1 is impossible, 2 means the de facto end of the UK, and 3 means no real Brexit.
No they don't, or not consistently so - a lot of it is done electronically. But the better option would be to not have one at all. The Republic of Ireland has always had a unique relationship with the UK (the common travel area, for example). Why does Britain need to impose customs checks on the Irish border at all?
My view: the demographics facts combined with the political fallout of Brexit mean that we're probably 80%+ certain to lose the next GE whatever.
So, I want the most technically competent and resilient PM possible to steer us through and out the other side.
We'll then have to pick up whatever mess Corbyn/McDonnell makes and fix that thereafter, hopefully after only 5 years, but it might be 10 years sadly.
That for me gives two choices to replace TM: Jeremy Hunt, and Michael Gove.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
I agree that May should go. She's uninspiring, lacking in ambition and just unlucky - I have always been a bit MEH about her. In the modern era you need someone who can project warmth and emotional intelligence and she has neither. David Davies and Boris would both be better chairpeople, fronting the govt.
But I disagree on Corbyn. If Labour reached a GE with a realistic chance of winning under Corbyn their vote would nosedive. I genuinely don't think anybody - other than a handful of left wing nihilists - want him and McDonnell running the country. I'd bet my house on it he'll never ever be PM of the UK.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
What if they didn't act alone? Surely it's worth investigating for that reason.
Sure. But we could just dip sample the population and investigate constantly on that basis. How much crime would be detected if we just investigated 1% of the population in general every year.
Not the same at all. The police have evidence that a crime occurred. They cannot presume to know all about it and who else might be implicated, so they have no choice to investigate it IMO. Surely we don't believe that criminals should get off, because what they did happened long ago.
No they don't, or not consistently so - a lot of it is done electronically. But the better option would be to not have one at all. The Republic of Ireland has always had a unique relationship with the UK (the common travel area, for example). Why does Britain need to impose customs checks on the Irish border at all?
'Not constituently' doesn't clear the bar set by May in her Florence speech of no physical infrastructure at all.
As for why it's needed? Apparently some people are very keen on 'our own' trade deals.
Not the same at all. The police have evidence that a crime occurred. They cannot presume to know all about it and who else might be implicated, so they have no choice to investigate it IMO..
They don't apply that principle to crimes which occur in 2017, as you would find if you were unlucky enough to be burgled.
My view: the demographics facts combined with the political fallout of Brexit mean that we're probably 80%+ certain to lose the next GE whatever.
So, I want the most technically competent and resilient PM possible to steer us through and out the other side.
We'll then have to pick up whatever mess Corbyn/McDonnell makes and fix that thereafter, hopefully after only 5 years, but it might be 10 years sadly.
That for me gives two choices to replace TM: Jeremy Hunt, and Michael Gove.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
I agree that May should go. She's uninspiring, lacking in ambition and just unlucky - I have always been a bit MEH about her. In the modern era you need someone who can project warmth and emotional intelligence and she has neither. David Davies and Boris would both be better chairpeople, fronting the govt.
But I disagree on Corbyn. If Labour reached a GE with a realistic chance of winning under Corbyn their vote would nosedive. I genuinely don't think anybody - other than a handful of left wing nihilists - want him and McDonnell running the country. I'd bet my house on it he'll never ever be PM of the UK.
It's always a bad idea to bet on what you wish was true.
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
So the idea that the UK-EU aren't already talking about trade is a charade, then?
FWIW, I'd have no problem in opening up our markets to Argentine Beef and New Zealand lamb (uber) as long as food standards were met.
The US, I agree, is a bit more of a concern. I'm happy to make it subject to consumer choice, but not to compromise on basic standards.
Ideologically the Conservatives and the Lib Dems should be seeking free trade and Brexit provides the opportunity.
With no tarrifs either way between the USA and the UK, businesses and consumers would be able to choose products and services based on their merits.
Any unfair subsidies can always be challenged via the World Trade Organisation.
No they don't, or not consistently so - a lot of it is done electronically. But the better option would be to not have one at all. The Republic of Ireland has always had a unique relationship with the UK (the common travel area, for example). Why does Britain need to impose customs checks on the Irish border at all?
'Not constituently' doesn't clear the bar set by May in her Florence speech of no physical infrastructure at all.
As for why it's needed? Apparently some people are very keen on 'our own' trade deals.
You are, I'm sure, deliberately missing the point. If the Norway-Sweden border isn't a consistent physical border (and it's not), then that does imply that those bits which are physical are an optional extra and could be done away with.
Likewise, why should it matter to, say, Australia, what the state of the UK's border is with Eire?
Comments
You may be right but I think those seeking to reject the A50 Treaty will need to explain fully what the consequences of so doing would be while those who support the A50 Treaty will need to spell out just how "outside" the EU we would be in truth.
The A50 Treaty will need to go hand in hand with the new immigration proposals (which will be interesting). The Prime Minister's language was positive on Brexit yesterday but fine words butter no parsnips. The majority, I hope, want us to have a strong and constructive relationship with the EU post-membership (I certainly do) but the Devil will be in the detail and if aspects of that relationship smack of EU jurisdiction or interference there will be a backlash.
"
Researchers said drugs were being passed for use across Europe on the basis of indirect measures - such as showing that medication had a biological effect on the body - rather than actual proof they could benefit patients.
"
Best you would have got out of him is BINO, and he knew that would be untenable.
" And while May is wounded, Boris’s leadership hopes look dead in the water. Some on the backbench 1922 Committee want a formal reprimand to be issued, others just want him sacked."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-waugh-zone-thursday-october-5-2017_uk_59d5e7c1e4b0becae8026e0d?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics
BF still gives him a 20% chance.
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
It reminds me of the guy who played ken barlow, when it got to trial there was a huge number of problems like this with regards to properties he never had access to on days he was filming using cars he never owned.
For One Nation Tories, try Allen, Wollaston, Stewart or Soubry ... given that Heseltine, Clarke or Patten are too old.
May has promised 5,000 council houses per year, I believe. Harold Macmillan delivered roughly 150,000. His party criticised Labour for not doing enough ... and did more.
I have a number of problems with this hence my more semi-detached status with the party these days. MY main issue isn't about respecting the previous result - people change their minds between elections so presumably can between referenda. The problem is no one can shown me where, within A50, there is provision for rejecting a treaty and remaining within the EU.
As to "bad" and "terrible" - depends who you talk to. There are those who would rather crash out now with WTO, start negotiating new FTAs and begin creating "Global Britain". If the negotiated treaty sounds too much like continuing membership (BINO in other words), I suspect there will be plenty who will oppose it.
What has she got left to lose? And it might stabilise the ship, if he doesn't have the numbers.
Shouldn't there also be an option of remain on the same terms as now or remain on the terms the EU decides to allow for us as we have already triggered article 50?
Did we ever find out what happened with Gove during the last leadership election btw?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/what-do-these-shootings-prove-only-what-best-suits-our-own-prejudices/
From my reading of A50, it's clear that there's no reverse gear. The logic of the Article also tends to that conclusion (if it was revocable, a member leaving could play hokey-cokey until they got the deal they wanted). The mechanism for leaving is defined in the Treaty so the Vienna Convention doesn't kick in.
Suppose Britain did want to reverse Brexit (leave aside the domestic implications here), and that the EU was amenable to that request. March 2019 comes and goes and a UK business flouts an EU law. It is prosecuted and the case is referred to the ECJ which finds that a political agreement cannot override a Treaty and that, as such, under A50, Britain is no longer a member and so the Court does not have the power to hear the case. All hell then breaks lose.
The only ones who can help her out are the EU.
Basically, Gove was too decent and tied himself up in knots after realising that Boris wasn't up to it.
Do you accept the new relationship with the EU that is on the table, or
Do you instruct the U.K. Government to accept the continuation of the A50 process and bring forward any different proposal at a future date?
This assumes that the rest of the EU offers a continuation of A50 sine die in anticipation of a parliamentary majority in 2022 or earlier that will have been elected on a vague manifesto commitment to keep exploring options for a new relationship with the EU whilst remaining a member.
The trouble was he thought everyone else was as stupid as he was clever.
His "halved the bill" nonsense fooled no-one, yet he was happy to say it with a perfectly straight face.
See also an entertaining piece by Stephen Bush here:
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/915870581056294912
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
A bit like traffic casualties as an acceptable price for personal transport .... if you were to abolish all traffic laws.
The problem is you don't want competence, you want ideological purity or at the very least a blank sheet.
Is it safe to come out from behind the sofa yet?
I'd add that the latest police pronouncements on the Heath case 'would have been interviewed under caution' ought perhaps to be considered in light of the Lord Bramall case - interviewed under caution, and recently paid £100k compensation.
That worked out well then...
I know it's not in your interests to do so, but you need to try and divorce your own personal view of your favourite Tory (or least disliked Tory) as a core Labour supporter, with which leader would be in the best electoral interests of the Tory Party.
I recognise that requires high levels of cognitive dissonance and dispassionate objectivity, however.
That was also a large factor behind the 'Out' vote which people are overlooking, it's not just about what the EU is now, it's what its on the path to becoming.
Death is the ultimate Statute of Limitations. If we won't put dead people through due process we shouldn't put them through the first bit. Especially Libel law doesn't apply to the dead.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
FWIW, I'd have no problem in opening up our markets to Argentine Beef and New Zealand lamb (uber) as long as food standards were met.
The US, I agree, is a bit more of a concern. I'm happy to make it subject to consumer choice, but not to compromise on basic standards.
Starting with all his protection officers, chief constables of his local constabulary and the Met Police, etc. There must some people still alive that would've known what he as up to?
Unless of course there's no real evidence for these allegations at all and the Police are just dragging the name of one of our former PM's through the mud...
- The RoI/NI border using magic
- Between NI and GB
- The UK as a whole stays in the customs union
1 is impossible, 2 means the de facto end of the UK, and 3 means no real Brexit.
If neither does that, it's no deal.
And no deal is even worse for EIRE than for us.
However it remains true that Tories will not want May to lead them into the next election because as an embitterered Thatcher said in 1990 after her MPs sacked her "Its a funny old world".
It is time you progressed to the next level in your sartorial adventures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41467963
If anything expect Labour to extend their poll lead.
But I disagree on Corbyn. If Labour reached a GE with a realistic chance of winning under Corbyn their vote would nosedive. I genuinely don't think anybody - other than a handful of left wing nihilists - want him and McDonnell running the country. I'd bet my house on it he'll never ever be PM of the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41503143
As for why it's needed? Apparently some people are very keen on 'our own' trade deals.
With no tarrifs either way between the USA and the UK, businesses and consumers would be able to choose products and services based on their merits.
Any unfair subsidies can always be challenged via the World Trade Organisation.
Likewise, why should it matter to, say, Australia, what the state of the UK's border is with Eire?