I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market, and that it would be economically disastrous
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
Shows you how thick Cameron really is, staking his political reputation on a referendum which he pushed for, where the options were (to him) a) no change, b) disaster.
This is an important point. I think we can all agree that, far from being strong and stable, the May government is weak and precarious, and that this is a disaster for the Conservative party. (I would also argue disastrous for the country). The question is: what can be done about it?
There are three reasons why the May government is weak and precarious:
1. The PM's personal authority has been shot to pieces by her catastrophic blunder on calling, and then completely screwing up, the election.
2. The party is divided on the central issue facing the government, and in any case that issue may be completely intractable, meaning that even if the government were 100% competent on it, there's no guarantee that the results would be be successful.
3. The parliamentary numbers mean that the government can be held to ransom by any rag-tag coalition of the disaffected, the principled, the cynical, and the calculating, and that it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the DUP.
The key point here is that changing leader won't change the parliamentary arithmetic, so it won't help with item 3. Indeed, no doubt if there were a change of leader, the DUP - never ones to miss an opportunity - would be sidling up with a request for more pork from the barrel in return for transferring their support to the new leader.
Neither is it likely that a change of leader will help with item 2; if anything, the uneasy and unstable truce which exists would be blown up by the leadership contest.
So the only reason for changing leader now is potentially item 1. In normal circumstances that might be a powerful reason, but the distraction would be very damaging to the Brexit talks, and any new leader would rapidly be hobbled by exactly the same problems 2 and 3 that Theresa May faces. We would swap one weak and precarious PM for another. It's not as though there is an outstanding candidate who, by sheer force of personality and political authority, could impose discipline and purpose on parliament.
In summary, we are stuffed, and just have to hope that we can get through Brexit and then execute a transition in time to be able to fight a competent campaign next time.
Yes, the Tories are stuffed. So stuffed that the country could well turn to a Labour Party that a few short months ago was generally thought to be looking at decades in opposition.
Your analysis shows exactly why a new leader will not help - the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Fine, so long as I can look forward to throwing you lot in jail for treason and throwing away the key.
Yeah, you guys are not the angry ones...
If you talk about "show trials" for us; I'll talk about treason for you. Far too many of you would prefer to be in Brussels sucking Juncker's c*ck than respecting the decision of the UK electorate and working to make a success of it.
It's very simple: back and respect your own country and countrymen, and treat your political opponents with respect, or fire will be met with fire.
the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Labour have the same problem. If they were in government that would be more apparent.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supportersn Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
No, it isn't. But it is pointless redebating the campaign with you for the umpteenth time.
"The EU's supporters say 'we must have access to the Single Market'" - no they didn't, they said they wanted to be members of the Single Market. So it begins with a transparent falsehood and goes downhill from there; I'm not surprised you don't want to redebate it for the umpteenth time.
There were many on the Remain side who confused access and membership, some because they didn't understand the difference.
Why would I want to debate it again with you? It's a total waste of my time.
Very few people on the Remain side were confused. Almost everyone on the Leave side was confused and those that weren't, such as the authors of your quote (I hope), used that confusion to talk bollocks, in the hope that no one would realise, as your quote also illustrated.
Fine, so long as I can look forward to throwing you lot in jail for treason and throwing away the key.
Yeah, you guys are not the angry ones...
If you talk about "show trials" for us; I'll talk about treason for you. Far too many of you would prefer to be in Brussels sucking Juncker's c*ck than respecting the decision of the UK electorate and working to make a success of it.
It's very simple: back and respect your own country and countrymen, and treat your political opponents with respect, or fire will be met with fire.
Am I imagining it, or have you got much coarser and more aggressive over the last year or two? Perhaps I'm confusing you with someone else. At all events, I don't think you are doing your cause any good by talking in those terms - it makes you sound like SeanT without the hint of self-parody.
the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Labour have the same problem. If they were in government that would be more apparent.
Labour's divisions do exist but they are not as deep as the Tories. In their heart of hearts most MPs, and almost all party members, would like to find a way of reversing the referendum decision. However if Labour were to come to power in the near future I think the party would go for an EEA "transition" period and in practice this would evolve into a permanent arrangement.
I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market, and that it would be economically disastrous
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
Shows you how thick Cameron really is, staking his political reputation on a referendum which he pushed for, where the options were (to him) a) no change, b) disaster.
Cameron was pragmatic. No referendum offer, no Cons government. So it would all have been moot. He did what he needed to do to secure a Conservative government.
Now, of course, you could say that a Milliband government with no EU referendum and a less virulent leftish Lab government wouldn't have been the worst thing in the world, compared with what we know and the options today, but hey, that's why we are only allowed to bet on events before they take place.
On Topic OGH thought the Dementia tax was a winner
FFS
Not a winner, but she might have got away with by saying either, Suck it up, bitchez, it's what you're getting or OK, I have u turned. Dithering for days and then u-turning while pretending not to were her errors. Remember that the song which largely did for her was "Liar, Liar".
This is an important point. I think we can all agree that, far from being strong and stable, the May government is weak and precarious, and that this is a disaster for the Conservative party. (I would also argue disastrous for the country). The question is: what can be done about it?
There are three reasons why the May government is weak and precarious:
The key point here is that changing leader won't change the parliamentary arithmetic, so it won't help with item 3. Indeed, no doubt if there were a change of leader, the DUP - never ones to miss an opportunity - would be sidling up with a request for more pork from the barrel in return for transferring their support to the new leader.
Neither is it likely that a change of leader will help with item 2; if anything, the uneasy and unstable truce which exists would be blown up by the leadership contest.
So the only reason for changing leader now is potentially item 1. In normal circumstances that might be a powerful reason, but the distraction would be very damaging to the Brexit talks, and any new leader would rapidly be hobbled by exactly the same problems 2 and 3 that Theresa May faces. We would swap one weak and precarious PM for another. It's not as though there is an outstanding candidate who, by sheer force of personality and political authority, could impose discipline and purpose on parliament.
In summary, we are stuffed, and just have to hope that we can get through Brexit and then execute a transition in time to be able to fight a competent campaign next time.
To an extent, a change of leader could deal with 2 as well as 1. If a leadership contest resulted in the winning candidate having laid out in detail their proposed negotiating approach, they would have the mandate to whip doubters in line with it. So any would-be Prime Ministers should be thinking through carefully not just whether they want the top job but what they want to do once they've got it.
It hurts me to say that I have to agree wholehearted with Mr Nabavi. Quite simply, a change of leader will not change the parliamentary arithmetic. The Tory executive are not in control of events, and as far as I can see, none of the main candidates to replace May, have a strong base within the Tory MP's. Unfortunately, my understanding of the state of the Tory Party bank accounts is that they have so much money in them that the party doesn't know what to do with it all - in other words, those that would have control of the leadership, the financiers, by the short hairs and cheque book are being ignored
Fake news. But [Bladerunner 2049] was still the weekend's most popular movie in the US. It topped the UK box office, with sales above £6m. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41546692
PS I hate the term dementia tax. Paying for your own care is not a tax - precisely the opposite - the alternative depends upon tax.
Of course you are right - but the Conservative campaign was so incompetent that they allowed opposition parties to misrepresent the proposal. It was a fatal mistake, inexcusable given that the proposal was actually reasonably good and was in fact the diametric opposite of a dementia tax,
Lots of things get labelled taxes that de jure aren't.
Community charge, spare room supplement, deferred dementia payment scheme, employer national insurance contribution, license fee.
Poll, bedroom, dementia, jobs, telly.
Of course the bedroom and dementia tax weren't even de facto taxes whereas the Telly, jobs (And the poll tax) were.
I normally walk through Nice airport with one cursory glance at my passport. Today it was checked three times with a lengthy queue at each. What's more it's the first time that I remember those in Schengen getting preferential treatment to those outside. I sncerely hope this is an abberation and not the shape of things to come.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supportersn Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
No, it isn't. But it is pointless redebating the campaign with you for the umpteenth time.
"The EU's supporters say 'we must have access to the Single Market'" - no they didn't, they said they wanted to be members of the Single Market. So it begins with a transparent falsehood and goes downhill from there; I'm not surprised you don't want to redebate it for the umpteenth time.
There were many on the Remain side who confused access and membership, some because they didn't understand the difference.
Why would I want to debate it again with you? It's a total waste of my time.
Very few people on the Remain side were confused. Almost everyone on the Leave side was confused and those that weren't, such as the authors of your quote (I hope), used that confusion to talk bollocks, in the hope that no one would realise, as your quote also illustrated.
Fine, so long as I can look forward to throwing you lot in jail for treason and throwing away the key.
Yeah, you guys are not the angry ones...
If you talk about "show trials" for us; I'll talk about treason for you. Far too many of you would prefer to be in Brussels sucking Juncker's c*ck than respecting the decision of the UK electorate and working to make a success of it.
It's very simple: back and respect your own country and countrymen, and treat your political opponents with respect, or fire will be met with fire.
Am I imagining it, or have you got much coarser and more aggressive over the last year or two? Perhaps I'm confusing you with someone else. At all events, I don't think you are doing your cause any good by talking in those terms - it makes you sound like SeanT without the hint of self-parody.
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
The Tories will probably be OK until the Corbyn firewall goes. That means one last GE in which they win most seats, but perhaps not an overall majority.
I'd tend to agree - unless Brexit goes bad and they end up carrying the can (If it goes bad, it could end up being Black Wednesday writ large for them). In that case, all bets are off.
If they do hold through one more election, see off Corbyn, see Corbyn replaced by someone who appears more plausible/less scary, and don't manage to renew their reputation in Government... well, the electorate seem more swingy than ever. It could end up being really bad for them.
(If that happens and Brexit goes bad as well but they cling on - just - for one more term - God only knows what'll happen after that)
The Tories will own Brexit and its consequences 100%, and then some. As I don't think it is likely to turn out well for people's living standards and the UK's global standing, I suspect that the next Tory PM will be the last one for a very long time. However, if I am wrong and Brexit delivers the promised sunlit uplands, the Tories will probably be in power until I pop my clogs.
Yes it has been clear for some time that Brexit is a corn laws type event for the Tories- they are going to get smashed either way. They know it though and the brexiteers see it as their last move in politics in some kind of bonkers nationalistic act of hara kiri.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
I haven't seen it but will do, but it is too bloody long. No film should run for a second over 120 minutes.
The Conservatives' proposed social care policy was a good policy introduced terribly and then retreated from. And it's generally not a good idea to get voters thinking about the possibility that in future they'll be doubly incontinent and suffering from Alzheimer's. Not exactly an inspiring vision.
The Conservatives' bigger problem is that they are consumed by Brexit. It's a second order problem. If they want to be treated seriously, they're going to have to start talking with real passion about the subjects that really matter. That's why they're not seeming very competent.
As per today's Times, Gove's latest "thoughts" and the desire to sacrifice Hammond because he doesn't lie effectively.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
I normally walk through Nice airport with one cursory glance at my passport. Today it was checked three times with a lengthy queue at each. What's more it's the first time that I remember those in Schengen getting preferential treatment to those outside. I sncerely hope this is an abberation and not the shape of things to come.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
I normally walk through Nice airport with one cursory glance at my passport. Today it was checked three times with a lengthy queue at each. What's more it's the first time that I remember those in Schengen getting preferential treatment to those outside. I sncerely hope this is an abberation and not the shape of things to come.
the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Labour have the same problem. If they were in government that would be more apparent.
I think that is very true. I can not comprehend how they would move forward with it. Whatever they did they would be in the same position as the Tories with people snipping from all angles within the party.
It's very simple: back and respect your own country and countrymen
I want the best for my Country and its citizens.
And Brexit has fucked that.
And, so do Brexiters. They just disagreed with you.
The decision went against you.
Time to move on.
Time to move on while you want all Remainers locked up, is that right?
Time to move on while you want all the Leavers put on trial, is that right?
Not at all. When have I said that? You have voted for your country to be diminished (assuming you stay in the country for the next 2-10 years) but that's politics, I think the same of Labour voters. What can you do, eh?
But you said: Fine, so long as I can look forward to throwing you lot in jail for treason and throwing away the key.
I voted Leave to take back control of our ability to sack the Politicians in charge and to get rid of Laws that stop us saving our Steel industries and that prevent us Nationalising things that the British voter wants to Nationalise.
I never expected us to be better off in the short term. I did expect that we would prioritise Trade though, in order to avoid a cliff edge.
The No Dealers are Crazies
I have worked in the steel industry for 20 years and I can assure you that you will not find many managers in the industry who were not pro-Remain.
Brexit, especially hard Brexit, will almost certainly force further shutdowns in what's left of the UK steel sector. Perhaps the best example is from your own home city of Sheffield, home to the last remaining stainless steel plant in the UK. Owned by the Finnish group Outokumpu, the plant melts stainless steel in Sheffield, it is cast into slabs which are then shipped to Sweden for hot rolling, then they are shipped back to Sheffield for cold rolling, and often exported yet again to EU customers and processors. Tariffs and customs red tape, if imposed, would almost certainly cause the Sheffield site to close as its production chain detailed above would be severely disrupted.
The sadness is that many workers I have spoken to in Scunthorpe, Port Talbot and Sheffield fell for this idea that leaving the EU will give them the best chance of keeping their jobs....the reality is the opposite.
Fake news. But [Bladerunner 2049] was still the weekend's most popular movie in the US. It topped the UK box office, with sales above £6m. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41546692
That doesn't contradict what I wrote.
It will struggle to recover its production costs, let alone its marketing costs.
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
I think that's a fair assessment, and it's worth remembering that a huge number of voters think that all politicians suck and elections are about choosing the least bad. The enthusiasm for Corbyn in perhaps a quarter of the electorate is unusual. It doesn't in itself produce extra voters compared with "oh, I suppose so" votes, but it does mean that Labour turnout is good even if people are generally turned off from politics.
An important question may be what floating voters will do if they come to the conclusion that Labour is more coherent and competent but has risky policies. Would such voters prefer incompetent drifting or competent riskiness? Hard to predict, but the recent global tendency has been to roll the dice with a new approach.
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
I think that's a fair assessment, and it's worth remembering that a huge number of voters think that all politicians suck and elections are about choosing the least bad. The enthusiasm for Corbyn in perhaps a quarter of the electorate is unusual. It doesn't in itself produce extra voters compared with "oh, I suppose so" votes, but it does mean that Labour turnout is good even if people are generally turned off from politics.
An important question may be what floating voters will do if they come to the conclusion that Labour is more coherent and competent but has risky policies. Would such voters prefer incompetent drifting or competent riskiness? Hard to predict, but the recent global tendency has been to roll the dice with a new approach.
Vince's recent demurring over never entering Coalition again might help.
I think a Corbyn Labour government that has a safety catch in the form of Vince and friends might be attractive. Obviously hard to engineer in an election.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
I used to respect what you posted on PB, now...
My rule of thumb is that if a film has anyone who appeared in or was associated with Four Lions, Ill Manors, Attack the Block, or anything by Terence Davies then it is a masterpiece. Otherwise, meh...
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
Another outing of the classic trope, "Brexit would be brilliant if everybody would just stop pointing out how shit it is"
And, yet, you lost. So whining and moaning about it on here about how the voters got it wrong changes nothing.
You have a few choices:
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
I think that's a fair assessment, and it's worth remembering that a huge number of voters think that all politicians suck and elections are about choosing the least bad. The enthusiasm for Corbyn in perhaps a quarter of the electorate is unusual. It doesn't in itself produce extra voters compared with "oh, I suppose so" votes, but it does mean that Labour turnout is good even if people are generally turned off from politics.
An important question may be what floating voters will do if they come to the conclusion that Labour is more coherent and competent but has risky policies. Would such voters prefer incompetent drifting or competent riskiness? Hard to predict, but the recent global tendency has been to roll the dice with a new approach.
Four years is a long time, think of the gap between 2006 and 2010. Journalists predicting another world economic crisis are as common today as they were uncommon before 2007. If we did have another such crash it would change all the rules and up-end all settled reputations. I wonder how our political system would cope.
I think that's a fair assessment, and it's worth remembering that a huge number of voters think that all politicians suck and elections are about choosing the least bad.
Another outing of the classic trope, "Brexit would be brilliant if everybody would just stop pointing out how shit it is"
And, yet, you lost. So whining and moaning about it on here about how the voters got it wrong changes nothing.
You have a few choices:
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Fake news. But [Bladerunner 2049] was still the weekend's most popular movie in the US. It topped the UK box office, with sales above £6m. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41546692
That doesn't contradict what I wrote.
It will struggle to recover its production costs, let alone its marketing costs.
Thus it will be classed as a flop.
If so, I think that'll be pretty much a rerun of the original Blade Runner initial release. Sad to say I remember it. Either the Observer or Sunday Times did a preview feature on it and I was blown away just by the concept & stills before I'd even seen a second of film.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
Which is more overrated?
a. Bladerunner b. Radiohead
My Mrs managed to enjoy Bladerunner 2049 despite thinking it was a Blade sequel until afterwards. That's how good it is.
It's very simple: back and respect your own country and countrymen
I want the best for my Country and its citizens.
And Brexit has fucked that.
And, so do Brexiters. They just disagreed with you.
The decision went against you.
Time to move on.
Time to move on while you want all Remainers locked up, is that right?
Time to move on while you want all the Leavers put on trial, is that right?
Not at all. When have I said that? You have voted for your country to be diminished (assuming you stay in the country for the next 2-10 years) but that's politics, I think the same of Labour voters. What can you do, eh?
But you said: Fine, so long as I can look forward to throwing you lot in jail for treason and throwing away the key.
You called us liars and threatened to put us on trial.
I disagree that I've voted for the country to be diminished, but I recognise why others might think so. I do expect a bit of respect, and that we can respectively disagree. And that works both ways.
I am tired of being patronised, denigrated, and insulted by Remainers. My patience only stretches so far.
If you want a sensible dialogue, firstly, dial-down the insults, and then make it constructive on what you think we should do next.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
I used to respect what you posted on PB, now...
My rule of thumb is that if a film has anyone who appeared in or was associated with Four Lions, Ill Manors, Attack the Block, or anything by Terence Davies then it is a masterpiece. Otherwise, meh...
Christ, don't tell me you think Davies' Sunset Song was a masterpiece..
Brexit will prove a huge problem for the Tories. Any fudging will just add to the acrimony and division. They need to strive for an intellectual purity on this issue. Elect Rees-Mogg as leader and go for the hardest Brexit imaginable. I'm talking about no trade or connections whatsoever with continental Europe. We should then negotiate with Trump to become a kind of 51st state, possible with some presence in Congress. To sweeten the pill for Trump, we should allow him to appoint Nigel Farage as a kind of overlord. A few eccentrics and fringe players aside, this is the scenario every Leave supporter secretly craves. The honesty will be healing.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
Which is more overrated?
a. Bladerunner b. Radiohead
Now is not the time for soundbites, but I feel the red hand of banishment upon my shoulders.
I normally walk through Nice airport with one cursory glance at my passport. Today it was checked three times with a lengthy queue at each. What's more it's the first time that I remember those in Schengen getting preferential treatment to those outside. I sncerely hope this is an abberation and not the shape of things to come.
So what do you put this down to?
Perhaps we're going to become the new 'Palestinians' of Europe where are passports are practically useless
Another outing of the classic trope, "Brexit would be brilliant if everybody would just stop pointing out how shit it is"
And, yet, you lost. So whining and moaning about it on here about how the voters got it wrong changes nothing.
You have a few choices:
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
4
I agree on (4) given the realpolitik.
Clever Remainers would be trying to get traction with (2), of course, and I think the might even win that argument, but they're too angry to see it.
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
I think that's a fair assessment, and it's worth remembering that a huge number of voters think that all politicians suck and elections are about choosing the least bad. The enthusiasm for Corbyn in perhaps a quarter of the electorate is unusual. It doesn't in itself produce extra voters compared with "oh, I suppose so" votes, but it does mean that Labour turnout is good even if people are generally turned off from politics.
An important question may be what floating voters will do if they come to the conclusion that Labour is more coherent and competent but has risky policies. Would such voters prefer incompetent drifting or competent riskiness? Hard to predict, but the recent global tendency has been to roll the dice with a new approach.
Two excellent posts. I don't think I'll try to improve on them, but will go and do some work instead. Cheerio.
It's very simple: back and respect your own country and countrymen
I want the best for my Country and its citizens.
And Brexit has fucked that.
And, so do Brexiters. They just disagreed with you.
The decision went against you.
Time to move on.
Time to move on while you want all Remainers locked up, is that right?
Time to move on while you want all the Leavers put on trial, is that right?
Not at all. When have I said that? You have voted for your country to be diminished (assuming you stay in the country for the next 2-10 years) but that's politics, I think the same of Labour voters. What can you do, eh?
But you said: Fine, so long as I can look forward to throwing you lot in jail for treason and throwing away the key.
You called us liars and threatened to put us on trial.
I disagree that I've voted for the country to be diminished, but I recognise why others might think so. I do expect a bit of respect, and that we can respectively disagree. And that works both ways.
I am tired of being patronised, denigrated, and insulted by Remainers. My patience only stretches so far.
If you want a sensible dialogue, firstly, dial-down the insults, and then make it constructive on what you think we should do next.
I did not call you a liar or threaten to put you on trial.
I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market, and that it would be economically disastrous
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
Shows you how thick Cameron really is, staking his political reputation on a referendum which he pushed for, where the options were (to him) a) no change, b) disaster.
He should have asked John Howard (ex Australian PM) how to call a referendum but make sure the status quo wins.
1) set up a assembly to come up with exactly what type of Brexit the brexiteers want. 2) Hold a referendum to chose between the proposed Brexit model and remaining.
This means that the Brexiteers spend 2 years infighting for their preferred type of Brexit: hard, soft or sqidgy. When the referendum comes a large chunk of leavers can't bring them selves to vote for the "wrong type of brexit"
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
I think that's a fair assessment, and it's worth remembering that a huge number of voters think that all politicians suck and elections are about choosing the least bad. The enthusiasm for Corbyn in perhaps a quarter of the electorate is unusual. It doesn't in itself produce extra voters compared with "oh, I suppose so" votes, but it does mean that Labour turnout is good even if people are generally turned off from politics.
An important question may be what floating voters will do if they come to the conclusion that Labour is more coherent and competent but has risky policies. Would such voters prefer incompetent drifting or competent riskiness? Hard to predict, but the recent global tendency has been to roll the dice with a new approach.
I do wonder what will happen if voters lose faith in the Tories but don't gain faith in Labour. Or if the Tories horrifically damage their brand with drift for a few years and a botched Brexit, and then Labour get in and find out that their policies don't end up helping and even hurt people.
Because it does seem to me that voters are less "anchored" than they were and are more likely to wander around the spectrum.
With the Lib Dems brand still burned by the after-effects of the Coalition - what exactly would happen?
- Would the Lib Dems be "forgiven" and revitalised? - Would the Tories be reborn after one term in Opposition? - Would the public decide to give Labour a chance to reinvent while in Government? - Would another new party come along and split the vote multiple ways?
It could be an interesting (in all senses of the word) period.
This is an important point. I think we can all agree that, far from being strong and stable, the May government is weak and precarious, and that this is a disaster for the Conservative party. (I would also argue disastrous for the country). The question is: what can be done about it?
There are three reasons why the May government is weak and precarious:
1. The PM's personal authority has been shot to pieces by her catastrophic blunder on calling, and then completely screwing up, the election.
2. The party is divided on the central issue facing the government, and in any case that issue may be completely intractable, meaning that even if the government were 100% competent on it, there's no guarantee that the results would be be successful.
3. The parliamentary numbers mean that the government can be held to ransom by any rag-tag coalition of the disaffected, the principled, the cynical, and the calculating, and that it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the DUP.
The key point here is that changing leader won't change the parliamentary arithmetic, so it won't help with item 3. Indeed, no doubt if there were a change of leader, the DUP - never ones to miss an opportunity - would be sidling up with a request for more pork from the barrel in return for transferring their support to the new leader.
Neither is it likely that a change of leader will help with item 2; if anything, the uneasy and unstable truce which exists would be blown up by the leadership contest.
So the only reason for changing leader now is potentially item 1. In normal circumstances that might be a powerful reason, but the distraction would be very damaging to the Brexit talks, and any new leader would rapidly be hobbled by exactly the same problems 2 and 3 that Theresa May faces. We would swap one weak and precarious PM for another. It's not as though there is an outstanding candidate who, by sheer force of personality and political authority, could impose discipline and purpose on parliament.
In summary, we are stuffed, and just have to hope that we can get through Brexit and then execute a transition in time to be able to fight a competent campaign next time.
To an extent, a change of leader could deal with 2 as well as 1. If a leadership contest resulted in the winning candidate having laid out in detail their proposed negotiating approach, they would have the mandate to whip doubters in line with it. So any would-be Prime Ministers should be thinking through carefully not just whether they want the top job but what they want to do once they've got it.
Brexit will prove a huge problem for the Tories. Any fudging will just add to the acrimony and division. They need to strive for an intellectual purity on this issue. Elect Rees-Mogg as leader and go for the hardest Brexit imaginable. I'm talking about no trade or connections whatsoever with continental Europe. We should then negotiate with Trump to become a kind of 51st state, possible with some presence in Congress. To sweeten the pill for Trump, we should allow him to appoint Nigel Farage as a kind of overlord. A few eccentrics and fringe players aside, this is the scenario every Leave supporter secretly craves. The honesty will be healing.
It would also wipe the Tory party from politics forever so it is a solution (of sorts) to their divisions over Europe.
The Conservatives' proposed social care policy was a good policy introduced terribly and then retreated from. And it's generally not a good idea to get voters thinking about the possibility that in future they'll be doubly incontinent and suffering from Alzheimer's. Not exactly an inspiring vision.
Well, yes, it's a serious question and as JohnO of this parish will know, is a big factor in local Government politics as well.
It's not just about dementia care - it should be a much bigger debate about what it is to be elderly in Britain now and in the future and that means taking a long hard look at out economic culture which is largely predicated on consumption today and worrying about saving for retirement tomorrow and hoping the value of our house comes to our rescue.
In truth, I begin to see the Conservative obsession with home ownership - the home becomes an asset against which to manage your economic future. That works IF the asset continues to rise in value which cuts across the notion of large-scale house building if you think the Conservatives actually believe in it and aren't just playing lip service because the current distorted market works well for many of their supporters.
Jeez will people please get over Bladerunner 2049. Kermode almost put on a surplice before he reviewed it. I haven't of course seen it yet, and I'm sure I saw the "wrong" Bladerunner when it first came out, but it really could be that it is a) just a sci-fi film; b) overblown; and c) a tiny bit pretentious.
I used to respect what you posted on PB, now...
My rule of thumb is that if a film has anyone who appeared in or was associated with Four Lions, Ill Manors, Attack the Block, or anything by Terence Davies then it is a masterpiece. Otherwise, meh...
Christ, don't tell me you think Davies' Sunset Song was a masterpiece..
I don't think it was a masterpiece, but very few people if any are trying to do what he is always trying to do as a condition of life. And that makes me forgive Sunset Song.
the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Labour have the same problem. If they were in government that would be more apparent.
Labour's divisions do exist but they are not as deep as the Tories. In their heart of hearts most MPs, and almost all party members, would like to find a way of reversing the referendum decision. However if Labour were to come to power in the near future I think the party would go for an EEA "transition" period and in practice this would evolve into a permanent arrangement.
What will Labour's policy be once we have left
(a) assuming a transition deal has been agreed and HMG is trying to agree a FTA by 2021?
(b) we have crashed out and trade is being conducted via WTO rules and there is a land border across Ireland?
I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market, and that it would be economically disastrous
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
Shows you how thick Cameron really is, staking his political reputation on a referendum which he pushed for, where the options were (to him) a) no change, b) disaster.
He should have asked John Howard (ex Australian PM) how to call a referendum but make sure the status quo wins.
1) set up a assembly to come up with exactly what type of Brexit the brexiteers want. 2) Hold a referendum to chose between the proposed Brexit model and remaining.
This means that the Brexiteers spend 2 years infighting for their preferred type of Brexit: hard, soft or sqidgy. When the referendum comes a large chunk of leavers can't bring them selves to vote for the "wrong type of brexit"
Could you PLEASE tell me what your username is a play on or anagram of.
I do wonder what will happen if voters lose faith in the Tories but don't gain faith in Labour. Or if the Tories horrifically damage their brand with drift for a few years and a botched Brexit, and then Labour get in and find out that their policies don't end up helping and even hurt people.
Because it does seem to me that voters are less "anchored" than they were and are more likely to wander around the spectrum.
I think that is a perfect summation of how I currently feel about politics. Who the heck can I vote for?
Cameron's and Osborne's finest work was setting up the Nudge unit based on behavioural economics (aka psychology done badly but funded well). Thaler talks about this in his book, Misbehaving.
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
A reasonable question to which there is no reasonable answer.
a. Stay on current (renegotiated) terms. Economically best, politically impossible b. EEA/EFTA. Pisses off both sides c. Hard Brexit. Economic suicide, but maybe the only way to expunge the Brexit virus from the body politic.
I normally walk through Nice airport with one cursory glance at my passport. Today it was checked three times with a lengthy queue at each. What's more it's the first time that I remember those in Schengen getting preferential treatment to those outside. I sncerely hope this is an abberation and not the shape of things to come.
Spent time queuing with the Russians at Catania while our EU brethren flew through the Schengen channel.
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
A reasonable question to which there is no reasonable answer.
a. Stay on current (renegotiated) terms. Economically best, politically impossible b. EEA/EFTA. Pisses off both sides c. Hard Brexit. Economic suicide, but maybe the only way to expunge the Brexit virus from the body politic.
Thank you. That's a generous response which I sincerely appreciate.
I'd much rather we engaged with each other at such a level.
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
A reasonable question to which there is no reasonable answer.
a. Stay on current (renegotiated) terms. Economically best, politically impossible b. EEA/EFTA. Pisses off both sides c. Hard Brexit. Economic suicide, but maybe the only way to expunge the Brexit virus from the body politic.
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
A reasonable question to which there is no reasonable answer.
a. Stay on current (renegotiated) terms. Economically best, politically impossible b. EEA/EFTA. Pisses off both sides c. Hard Brexit. Economic suicide, but maybe the only way to expunge the Brexit virus from the body politic.
A reasonable exchange of views by two people who both want what is best for our country. Pity about TGOHF's comment.
I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market, and that it would be economically disastrous
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
Shows you how thick Cameron really is, staking his political reputation on a referendum which he pushed for, where the options were (to him) a) no change, b) disaster.
He should have asked John Howard (ex Australian PM) how to call a referendum but make sure the status quo wins.
1) set up a assembly to come up with exactly what type of Brexit the brexiteers want. 2) Hold a referendum to chose between the proposed Brexit model and remaining.
This means that the Brexiteers spend 2 years infighting for their preferred type of Brexit: hard, soft or sqidgy. When the referendum comes a large chunk of leavers can't bring them selves to vote for the "wrong type of brexit"
Absolutely. I've been arguing this for some time. So clear in hindsight - how did we miss it in advance?
Cameron committed to a referendum that I suspect he never expected he'd have a majority to deliver. Having won the majority, he clearly had to hold the referendum but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant. If they thrashed around for years unable to agree that, so be it, Leave could be blamed for a lack of a referendum. I think Leave would have come to a consensus tbh and they may well still have won... but at least we'd now know exactly what the parameters are.
" ... but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant."
How could he? How could he, a half-hearted Eurosceptic, be expected to reconcile the drastic split in leavers' views that even this leavecentric government cannot close?
Just wargame what you're saying for a moment. Say Cameron has tried that: the first thing Farage et al would have said is : "he's kicking it into the long grass." The conversations from fanatical leavers on here after the GE in 2015 about the timing of the referendum were hilarious.
*Any* agreement that Cameron had managed to get - in the unlikely event he got any - would have been immediately disowned by uninvolved leavers, or by Labour, amidst claims of trying to 'rig' the result. After all, there was a referendum to win.
No, any mess coming out of Brexit will be firmly nailed to leavers' doors, not Cameron's. But I hope there is no mess.
There are only about 5 basic options:
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
On the three options, with EEA/EFTA pissing off both sides, that may be the 'best', from an objective perspective.
In psychological studies, it's been found that harming your opponents or denying them benefits can be valued more than increasing one's own situation. I vaguely recollect a study in which arbitrary groups were offered either £5 for each member, or £10 for each member but with every other group getting £5 each (or similar numbers, can't recall precisely). They almost always went for just £5 each, making themselves poorer but also refusing any increased cash [NB which didn't cost them anything] to 'others'.
And that's with arbitrary groups. With genuine groups, one can only imagine the effect is more pronounced.
In short, the advantage of a compromise isn't that you get some of what you want, it's that you deny the Other Side some of what they want.
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
A reasonable question to which there is no reasonable answer.
a. Stay on current (renegotiated) terms. Economically best, politically impossible b. EEA/EFTA. Pisses off both sides c. Hard Brexit. Economic suicide, but maybe the only way to expunge the Brexit virus from the body politic.
A reasonable exchange of views by two people who both want what is best for our country. Pity about TGOHF's comment.
I think Scott has rather proved my point.
Prefers the act of throwing the toys out of the pram over national interest. Angry postings day after day with no positive suggestions other than those that disagree smell of wee.
In November 1918, the German generals realised that strategically they were lost. Prudently they surrendered to the Allies, rather than see Germany conquered and crushed.
The unforeseen consequence was that they had run ahead of much of German opinion which was unprepared for this. From this emerged the stab-in-the-back myth, which did so much to fuel a second more dangerous bout of German nationalism.
Similarly, Britain's position in Brexit is strategically awful. But the Leavers are wholly unprepared for it. Advocating anything constructive at present is not just pointless but would be actively harmful. The illogic and disastrousness of the position needs to be fully explored and understood by the meanest Leaver intellects. The damage has to be done.
Once that is widely understood, Britain can proceed forwards, though it will undoubtedly be weaker morally, economically and socially than it would otherwise be. Planning before that point is reached, however, is futile.
the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Labour have the same problem. If they were in government that would be more apparent.
Labour's divisions do exist but they are not as deep as the Tories. In their heart of hearts most MPs, and almost all party members, would like to find a way of reversing the referendum decision. However if Labour were to come to power in the near future I think the party would go for an EEA "transition" period and in practice this would evolve into a permanent arrangement.
What will Labour's policy be once we have left
(a) assuming a transition deal has been agreed and HMG is trying to agree a FTA by 2021?
(b) we have crashed out and trade is being conducted via WTO rules and there is a land border across Ireland?
It will be to blame the Tories and the crap Brexit deal they negotiated for everything that goes wrong. That will buy them ten years, at least.
Increased productivity is the source of increased wealth. Conservative plans to do this are summarised in Chapter 7 of a House of Commons Library research paper on Productivity at
This sets out George Osborne's Productivity Plan and Philip Hammond's follow up National Productivity Investment Fund. It encompasses the Industrial Strategy.
For some reason the Conservatives seem embarrassed by these plans and don't give them much publicity. Perhaps the Chancellor will give them more publiciy at the next Budget when the OBR's revised and lower productivity forecasts will have a big impact on the governments future tax raising ability.
Comments
Your analysis shows exactly why a new leader will not help - the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
It's very simple: back and respect your own country and countrymen, and treat your political opponents with respect, or fire will be met with fire.
And Brexit has fucked that.
https://twitter.com/JamesReedYP/status/917322816646762496
FFS
The manner in which he has been attacked may alienate Remainers if he is removed.
It seems Blade Runner 2049 is set to be a box office flop. It really shouldn't be.
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/blade-runner-2049/52465/blade-runner-2049-falls-below-expectations-at-box-office
https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-35-year-wait-blade-runner-sequel-falls-short-of-expectations-1507485997?mod=e2fb
We're particularly gratified by your response, keep it up.
Now, of course, you could say that a Milliband government with no EU referendum and a less virulent leftish Lab government wouldn't have been the worst thing in the world, compared with what we know and the options today, but hey, that's why we are only allowed to bet on events before they take place.
But [Bladerunner 2049] was still the weekend's most popular movie in the US. It topped the UK box office, with sales above £6m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41546692
Community charge, spare room supplement, deferred dementia payment scheme, employer national insurance contribution, license fee.
Poll, bedroom, dementia, jobs, telly.
Of course the bedroom and dementia tax weren't even de facto taxes whereas the Telly, jobs (And the poll tax) were.
The decision went against you.
Time to move on.
Income tax, of course, was a temporary measure (ahem) introduced by Pitt the Younger to ensure we had sufficient funds for war with France.
But you said: Fine, so long as I can look forward to throwing you lot in jail for treason and throwing away the key.
Brexit, especially hard Brexit, will almost certainly force further shutdowns in what's left of the UK steel sector. Perhaps the best example is from your own home city of Sheffield, home to the last remaining stainless steel plant in the UK. Owned by the Finnish group Outokumpu, the plant melts stainless steel in Sheffield, it is cast into slabs which are then shipped to Sweden for hot rolling, then they are shipped back to Sheffield for cold rolling, and often exported yet again to EU customers and processors. Tariffs and customs red tape, if imposed, would almost certainly cause the Sheffield site to close as its production chain detailed above would be severely disrupted.
The sadness is that many workers I have spoken to in Scunthorpe, Port Talbot and Sheffield fell for this idea that leaving the EU will give them the best chance of keeping their jobs....the reality is the opposite.
It will struggle to recover its production costs, let alone its marketing costs.
Thus it will be classed as a flop.
This is what Yugoslavia in '91 must have felt like.
An important question may be what floating voters will do if they come to the conclusion that Labour is more coherent and competent but has risky policies. Would such voters prefer incompetent drifting or competent riskiness? Hard to predict, but the recent global tendency has been to roll the dice with a new approach.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/917326893950660608
I think a Corbyn Labour government that has a safety catch in the form of Vince and friends might be attractive. Obviously hard to engineer in an election.
a. Bladerunner
b. Radiohead
You have a few choices:
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous)
(2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement)
(3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said)
(4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote)
(5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
Sorry Nick ...
Sad to say I remember it. Either the Observer or Sunday Times did a preview feature on it and I was blown away just by the concept & stills before I'd even seen a second of film.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2017/10/9/amazon-might-be-lowering-the-rate-of-inflation-globally
I disagree that I've voted for the country to be diminished, but I recognise why others might think so. I do expect a bit of respect, and that we can respectively disagree. And that works both ways.
I am tired of being patronised, denigrated, and insulted by Remainers. My patience only stretches so far.
If you want a sensible dialogue, firstly, dial-down the insults, and then make it constructive on what you think we should do next.
Clever Remainers would be trying to get traction with (2), of course, and I think the might even win that argument, but they're too angry to see it.
1) set up a assembly to come up with exactly what type of Brexit the brexiteers want.
2) Hold a referendum to chose between the proposed Brexit model and remaining.
This means that the Brexiteers spend 2 years infighting for their preferred type of Brexit: hard, soft or sqidgy. When the referendum comes a large chunk of leavers can't bring them selves to vote for the "wrong type of brexit"
Or if the Tories horrifically damage their brand with drift for a few years and a botched Brexit, and then Labour get in and find out that their policies don't end up helping and even hurt people.
Because it does seem to me that voters are less "anchored" than they were and are more likely to wander around the spectrum.
With the Lib Dems brand still burned by the after-effects of the Coalition - what exactly would happen?
- Would the Lib Dems be "forgiven" and revitalised?
- Would the Tories be reborn after one term in Opposition?
- Would the public decide to give Labour a chance to reinvent while in Government?
- Would another new party come along and split the vote multiple ways?
It could be an interesting (in all senses of the word) period.
It's not just about dementia care - it should be a much bigger debate about what it is to be elderly in Britain now and in the future and that means taking a long hard look at out economic culture which is largely predicated on consumption today and worrying about saving for retirement tomorrow and hoping the value of our house comes to our rescue.
In truth, I begin to see the Conservative obsession with home ownership - the home becomes an asset against which to manage your economic future. That works IF the asset continues to rise in value which cuts across the notion of large-scale house building if you think the Conservatives actually believe in it and aren't just playing lip service because the current distorted market works well for many of their supporters.
(a) assuming a transition deal has been agreed and HMG is trying to agree a FTA by 2021?
(b) we have crashed out and trade is being conducted via WTO rules and there is a land border across Ireland?
I have no good choices.
The Martian is Sir Ridley's Scott's finest film, even before you mention the film's awesome soundtrack.
Cameron's and Osborne's finest work was setting up the Nudge unit based on behavioural economics (aka psychology done badly but funded well). Thaler talks about this in his book, Misbehaving.
a. Stay on current (renegotiated) terms. Economically best, politically impossible
b. EEA/EFTA. Pisses off both sides
c. Hard Brexit. Economic suicide, but maybe the only way to expunge the Brexit virus from the body politic.
Who can forget when the former Bletchley Park code breaker gave Lord King the v sign?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_14LIkuTJ0
I'd much rather we engaged with each other at such a level.
Recently saw the King Arthur job by Guy Ritchie - possibly one of the worst films ever.
1. WTO
2. FTA (Canada)
3. EFTA (Norway)
4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey)
5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
In psychological studies, it's been found that harming your opponents or denying them benefits can be valued more than increasing one's own situation. I vaguely recollect a study in which arbitrary groups were offered either £5 for each member, or £10 for each member but with every other group getting £5 each (or similar numbers, can't recall precisely). They almost always went for just £5 each, making themselves poorer but also refusing any increased cash [NB which didn't cost them anything] to 'others'.
And that's with arbitrary groups. With genuine groups, one can only imagine the effect is more pronounced.
In short, the advantage of a compromise isn't that you get some of what you want, it's that you deny the Other Side some of what they want.
Prefers the act of throwing the toys out of the pram over national interest. Angry postings day after day with no positive suggestions other than those that disagree smell of wee.
See also Hammond.
The unforeseen consequence was that they had run ahead of much of German opinion which was unprepared for this. From this emerged the stab-in-the-back myth, which did so much to fuel a second more dangerous bout of German nationalism.
Similarly, Britain's position in Brexit is strategically awful. But the Leavers are wholly unprepared for it. Advocating anything constructive at present is not just pointless but would be actively harmful. The illogic and disastrousness of the position needs to be fully explored and understood by the meanest Leaver intellects. The damage has to be done.
Once that is widely understood, Britain can proceed forwards, though it will undoubtedly be weaker morally, economically and socially than it would otherwise be. Planning before that point is reached, however, is futile.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/917330921703043072
Edited extra bit: very left field. But would Cameron even want the job?
It is about improving UK productivity.
Increased productivity is the source of increased wealth. Conservative plans to do this are summarised in Chapter 7 of a House of Commons Library research paper on Productivity at
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06492/SN06492.pdf
This sets out George Osborne's Productivity Plan and Philip Hammond's follow up National Productivity Investment Fund. It encompasses the Industrial Strategy.
For some reason the Conservatives seem embarrassed by these plans and don't give them much publicity. Perhaps the Chancellor will give them more publiciy at the next Budget when the OBR's revised and lower productivity forecasts will have a big impact on the governments future tax raising ability.