Roy Moore's Spokeswoman Said His Opponent Would Support Killing A CNN Anchor's "Unborn Child"
In a pretty wild interview with CNN anchor Poppy Harlow on Tuesday, Roy Moore's campaign spokeswoman, Janet Porter, brought up Harlow's "unborn child" twice to defend the Alabama Senate candidate against allegations of child molestation and sexual misconduct.
The interesting thing about the opinion polls at the moment is that however you take an average of them Labour are not advancing on their general election showing. If you take an average of the last 5 polls, Labour are on just over 41%, if you take an average of the last 10 polls, Labour are on just over 41%. The same is true for the last 15 or 20 polls. At the general election Labour polled just over 41%. The only change is a small drop in the Tory share going to minor parties.
The Tories have to hope they can claw some of them back post Brexit, under a new leader, as well as make inroads into the North.
Not a prayer. The Conservatives need to do something spectacular to get listened to by metropolitans and pro-Remain supporters again. They look lost for a generation to me.
I think it's brave to make any political forecasts over that time horizon, particularly in the current climate.
The Tories will never win them back through the culture wars. They might though (albeit reluctantly) if Corbyn hits them directly in the pocket, which he almost certainly will.
You haven't begun to conceive of the depths of loathing felt.
Nothing that has happened since then will have drawn these people back to the Tories.
Corbyn and McDonell will if there is areal prospect of a Labour majority.
Indeed. I think a lot of people saw GE2017 as a free hit against the government and a hard brexit, as a Con victory looked nailed on. That won't be the case this time around. Fear of Corbynomics will be real.
This is a much-touted theory among Conservatives. The only problem is that there isn't the slightest evidence of any regret on the part of those who voted Labour in June.
Ealing Central & Acton, Brentford & Isleworth and Ilford North all went from the marginal category to very safe Labour.
In Ilford North's case this arose from demographic change (more ethnic minorities, more tenants, and more young people) and the impossibility of the local housing market.
Likewise, Enfield North, which produced a very similar result.
Roy Moore's Spokeswoman Said His Opponent Would Support Killing A CNN Anchor's "Unborn Child"
In a pretty wild interview with CNN anchor Poppy Harlow on Tuesday, Roy Moore's campaign spokeswoman, Janet Porter, brought up Harlow's "unborn child" twice to defend the Alabama Senate candidate against allegations of child molestation and sexual misconduct.
Roy Moore's Spokeswoman Said His Opponent Would Support Killing A CNN Anchor's "Unborn Child"
In a pretty wild interview with CNN anchor Poppy Harlow on Tuesday, Roy Moore's campaign spokeswoman, Janet Porter, brought up Harlow's "unborn child" twice to defend the Alabama Senate candidate against allegations of child molestation and sexual misconduct.
Roy Moore's Spokeswoman Said His Opponent Would Support Killing A CNN Anchor's "Unborn Child"
In a pretty wild interview with CNN anchor Poppy Harlow on Tuesday, Roy Moore's campaign spokeswoman, Janet Porter, brought up Harlow's "unborn child" twice to defend the Alabama Senate candidate against allegations of child molestation and sexual misconduct.
It was apparent at the time that the Conservatives' hubris was leading them to target unrealistic seats. It was less apparent that Labour's defeatism was leading them to fail to target realistic seats.
Yup. If Labour's polling/confidence had been better, Jeremy Corbyn would be PM now.
Which would probably be one of the most (if not the most) dramatic political stories for British politics ever.
Labour's private pollster had them 13% behind on polling day.
I read somewhere the other day (Newstatesman?) that many pollsters now feel it is next to impossible to poll the UK politically, as they just can't reach a representative sample.
Survation managed it.
Ipsos MORI & GFK managed it with their exit poll.
YouGov managed it with their big mysterious statistical seat by seat analysis.
It wasn't that mysterious. Try have a huge panel, they were able to get respondents in all constituencies. They applied some region by region weighting.
The only thing that is surprising is they nailed the weighting dead on fist time, I thought they'd need a couple.of elections to calibrate the model.
If we're to be subject to all EU regulation and paying for the privilege, that's a departure in name only, which would appear to have the twin flaws of both disrespecting the vote *and* being worse than staying in because we kept the negatives and lose what positives there are.
Does make me wonder if there'll be another referendum.
Too much hassle.
Easier to cancel Brexit via a general election with the winning party promising to repeal Brexit or keep us in the single market/customs union.
Which party is going to propose that and win? Oh right.
Labour, they are shameless charlatans, and they could pull it off, especially if the alternative is economic ruin in the eyes of the voters.
I don’t think that works, however much I would like it to. There is no level of impending real world economic disaster that would stop the Tories going into a new GE campaign promising painless soft-as-a-feather yet hard-as-a-diamond free-movement-and-trade-for-us yet hard-borders-against-them Brexit. And Labour would be too scared that enough voters would once again believe a pro-Brexit press saying it was possible, so would campaign on something roughly similar with added niceness. Maybe they could just about slip a second referendum into the manifesto but I’m not sure they would even risk that.
Labour is painfully working its way towards the obvious - that calling for a second referendum is the only way to get itself de-impaled from the various spikes it has lodged up its backside whilst trying to dance about on the fence.
Looks pretty like where we seem to be heading: in the SM and CU, but not in them.
For goods.
For services access to the EU market is just as important. There will need to be a deal cut on them. And that will involve "regulatory alignment". Northern Ireland - and hence the UK if we are to take David Davis at face value (and why shouldn't we) - cannot maintain an open border with the RoI and have a regulatory regime for financial services that runs contrary to the one in the EU, for example.
Looks pretty like where we seem to be heading: in the SM and CU, but not in them.
For goods.
For services access to the EU market is just as important. There will need to be a deal cut on them. And that will involve "regulatory alignment". Northern Ireland - and hence the UK if we are to take David Davis at face value (and why shouldn't we) - cannot maintain an open border with the RoI and have a regulatory regime for financial services that runs contrary to the one in the EU, for example.
We export more services to non-EU markets than to the EU. There is no regulatory alignment with the rest of the world other than what is covered by the WTO (not a lot for services trade).
Additionally the single market for services is almost non-existent. Switzerland gets by just fine (better than fine) without 100% regulatory alignment with the EU on services.
Additionally, you imply that the EU is a closed market to any company or country which doesn't have regulatory alignment. It may be protectionist, but it's not as bad as that. As long as our companies comply with EU regulations for services being sold in then there's no real issue. The same applies for goods, of course, but most of that comes from the WTO which the EU just passes on as some directive or other. The issue with goods is and has always been tariffs. If we can agree tariff free trade with the EU most of the border issues go away.
Additionally, tariffs are a joke these days, multinational corporations import everything to Ireland at well, well below cost so they can book all of the profit in Ireland where they pay effective rates of tax at just 1-2%. In the end, a deal can be done but the EU would never allow such a deal to go through as it will weaken their continued case for existence.
I was basing my comments on us doing an FTA with the EU. That will include provisions on regulatory alignment. In some cases, this will mean mirroring the EU - so we do what they do - in other cases it will mean a commitment not to diverge; this will probably be what happens with financial services. Of course, if there is no deal then it will inevitably be very different - but it looks like the government is ready to concede on just about everything to ensure that does not happen.
Roy Moore's Spokeswoman Said His Opponent Would Support Killing A CNN Anchor's "Unborn Child"
In a pretty wild interview with CNN anchor Poppy Harlow on Tuesday, Roy Moore's campaign spokeswoman, Janet Porter, brought up Harlow's "unborn child" twice to defend the Alabama Senate candidate against allegations of child molestation and sexual misconduct.
They'll vote for who Jon Lansman tells them to vote for.
I doubt that a majority of Labour Party members even know who Jon Lansman is.
No. Today's left are not the tightly-disciplined political obsessives of the 1980s and early 1990s. They are mostly political novices with a slightly starry-eyed perspective on Corbyn and Momentum but their policy positions are generally undeveloped and they are much too young to have much understanding of the 1970s Marxism that drove Corbyn and McDonnell. The Party is in a state of flux and the idea that it is on the road to becoming a latter-day version of the Soviet Communist Party is misplaced.
Again, that is what makes Lansman so powerful. Most Labour members keep only half an eye on what is happening in the party - if that - and are drawn personally to Corbyn. They actually rely on being told what Jeremy wants and who he supports. He gets to do that through his database. And that means Momentum candidates take control of the levers of power inside the party so that when Jeremy does step down they still control things whoever is leader.
Of course. Just as Blair supporters still controlled the machine after he stepped down. Or Thatcher supporters controlled the Tory machine after she went.
The point I am trying to make is that Momentum and co are just another political trend that is a product of their time, and their time is now. When their time is over they will be gone, just as new Labour or Thatcherism are gone. There have been many previous attempts to entrench one faction or another in control of Labour and none of them have worked in the long run. And this one will be no different.
Looks pretty like where we seem to be heading: in the SM and CU, but not in them.
For goods.
For services access to the EU market is just as important. There will need to be a deal cut on them. And that will involve "regulatory alignment". Northern Ireland - and hence the UK if we are to take David Davis at face value (and why shouldn't we) - cannot maintain an open border with the RoI and have a regulatory regime for financial services that runs contrary to the one in the EU, for example.
I think we can and we already do so.
We are currently in the EU so cannot have a financial services regime that runs contrary to EU laws and regulations.
The interesting thing about the opinion polls at the moment is that however you take an average of them Labour are not advancing on their general election showing. If you take an average of the last 5 polls, Labour are on just over 41%, if you take an average of the last 10 polls, Labour are on just over 41%. The same is true for the last 15 or 20 polls. At the general election Labour polled just over 41%. The only change is a small drop in the Tory share going to minor parties.
The Tories have to hope they can claw some of them back post Brexit, under a new leader, as well as make inroads into the North.
Not a prayer. The Conservatives need to do something spectacular to get listened to by metropolitans and pro-Remain supporters again. They look lost for a generation to me.
I think it's brave to make any political forecasts over that time horizon, particularly in the current climate.
The Tories will never win them back through the culture wars. They might though (albeit reluctantly) if Corbyn hits them directly in the pocket, which he almost certainly will.
You haven't begun to conceive of the depths of loathing felt.
Nothing that has happened since then will have drawn these people back to the Tories.
Corbyn and McDonell will if there is areal prospect of a Labour majority.
Indeed. I think a lot of people saw GE2017 as a free hit against the government and a hard brexit, as a Con victory looked nailed on. That won't be the case this time around. Fear of Corbynomics will be real.
This is a much-touted theory among Conservatives. The only problem is that there isn't the slightest evidence of any regret on the part of those who voted Labour in June.
Ealing Central & Acton, Brentford & Isleworth and Ilford North all went from the marginal category to very safe Labour.
In Ilford North's case this arose from demographic change (more ethnic minorities, more tenants, and more young people) and the impossibility of the local housing market.
Likewise, Enfield North, which produced a very similar result.
The irony is that the one party that many are looking toward to sort out the housing market has the biggest party-political incentive to leave it broken. Whereas the Tories who need to get it sorted are paralysed by impotence and indecision.
I was basing my comments on us doing an FTA with the EU. That will include provisions on regulatory alignment. In some cases, this will mean mirroring the EU - so we do what they do - in other cases it will mean a commitment not to diverge; this will probably be what happens with financial services. Of course, if there is no deal then it will inevitably be very different - but it looks like the government is ready to concede on just about everything to ensure that does not happen.
What does that mean for areas where we already differ from EU regulations? Our banking regulations are very different to EU regulations, especially on ring fencing. No, I think you're reading far too much into all this. It's goods regulations where alignment matters, and where I think the government will probably give way (though maybe as far as committing to abide by goods regulations for anything sold into the region and for anything "exported" to NI).
"The allegations about the material and computer, now nine years old, are false, disreputable political smears from a discredited police officer acting in flagrant breach of his duty to keep the details of police investigations confidential, and amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination."
He's going to sue him for calling him 'discredited'?
They'll vote for who Jon Lansman tells them to vote for.
I doubt that a majority of Labour Party members even know who Jon Lansman is.
No. Today's left are not the tightly-disciplined political obsessives of the 1980s and early 1990s. They are mostly political novices with a slightly starry-eyed perspective on Corbyn and Momentum but their policy positions are generally undeveloped and they are much too young to have much understanding of the 1970s Marxism that drove Corbyn and McDonnell. The Party is in a state of flux and the idea that it is on the road to becoming a latter-day version of the Soviet Communist Party is misplaced.
Again, that is what makes Lansman so powerful. Most Labour members keep only half an eye on what is happening in the party - if that - and are drawn personally to Corbyn. They actually rely on being told what Jeremy wants and who he supports. He gets to do that through his database. And that means Momentum candidates take control of the levers of power inside the party so that when Jeremy does step down they still control things whoever is leader.
Of course. Just as Blair supporters still controlled the machine after he stepped down. Or Thatcher supporters controlled the Tory machine after she went.
The point I am trying to make is that Momentum and co are just another political trend that is a product of their time, and their time is now. When their time is over they will be gone, just as new Labour or Thatcherism are gone. There have been many previous attempts to entrench one faction or another in control of Labour and none of them have worked in the long run. And this one will be no different.
Yep, however much the machine politicians of so-called moderate Blairite Labour might complain, 'twas them wot wrote the copybook.
The interesting thing about the opinion polls at the moment is that however you take an average of them Labour are not advancing on their general election showing. If you take an average of the last 5 polls, Labour are on just over 41%, if you take an average of the last 10 polls, Labour are on just over 41%. The same is true for the last 15 or 20 polls. At the general election Labour polled just over 41%. The only change is a small drop in the Tory share going to minor parties.
The Tories have to hope they can claw some of them back post Brexit, under a new leader, as well as make inroads into the North.
Not a prayer. The Conservatives need to do something spectacular to get listened to by metropolitans and pro-Remain supporters again. They look lost for a generation to me.
I blockquote>
You haven't begun to conceive of the depths of loathing felt.
Nothing that has happened since then will have drawn these people back to the Tories.
Corbyn and McDonell will if there is areal prospect of a Labour majority.
.
This is a much-touted theory among Conservatives. The only problem is that there isn't the slightest evidence of any regret on the part of those who voted Labour in June.
Ealing Central & Acton, Brentford & Isleworth and Ilford North all went from the marginal category to very safe Labour.
In Ilford North's case this arose from demographic change (more ethnic minorities, more tenants, and more young people) and the impossibility of the local housing market.
Likewise, Enfield North, which produced a very similar result.
The irony is that the one party that many are looking toward to sort out the housing market has the biggest party-political incentive to leave it broken. Whereas the Tories who need to get it sorted are paralysed by impotence and indecision.
If, for example, a Labour government were to introduce rent controls, of the type that applied from 1965 to 1988, the housing market would be flooded with properties for sale, boosting owner occupation, which would not be in Labour's interest.
They'll vote for who Jon Lansman tells them to vote for.
I doubt that a majority of Labour Party members even know who Jon Lansman is.
No. Today's left are not the tightly-disciplined political obsessives of the 1980s and early 1990s. They are mostly political novices with a slightly starry-eyed perspective on Corbyn and Momentum but their policy positions are generally undeveloped and they are much too young to have much understanding of the 1970s Marxism that drove Corbyn and McDonnell. The Party is in a state of flux and the idea that it is on the road to becoming a latter-day version of the Soviet Communist Party is misplaced.
Again, that is what makes Lansman so powerful. Most Labour members keep only half an eye on what is happening in the party - if that - and are drawn personally to Corbyn. They actually rely on being told what Jeremy wants and who he supports. He gets to do that through his database. And that means Momentum candidates take control of the levers of power inside the party so that when Jeremy does step down they still control things whoever is leader.
Of course. Just as Blair supporters still controlled the machine after he stepped down. Or Thatcher supporters controlled the Tory machine after she went.
The point I am trying to make is that Momentum and co are just another political trend that is a product of their time, and their time is now. When their time is over they will be gone, just as new Labour or Thatcherism are gone. There have been many previous attempts to entrench one faction or another in control of Labour and none of them have worked in the long run. And this one will be no different.
I also think that sort of top down influence is not realistic in the internet and social media age. Twitter and such are much more organic than the top down discipline of Alastair Campbell, Mandleson and co.
They'll vote for who Jon Lansman tells them to vote for.
I doubt that a majority of Labour Party members even know who Jon Lansman is.
No. Today's left are not the tightly-disciplined political obsessives of the 1980s and early 1990s. They are mostly political novices with a slightly starry-eyed perspective on Corbyn and Momentum but their policy positions are generally undeveloped and they are much too young to have much understanding of the 1970s Marxism that drove Corbyn and McDonnell. The Party is in a state of flux and the idea that it is on the road to becoming a latter-day version of the Soviet Communist Party is misplaced.
Again, that is what makes Lansman so powerful. Most Labour members keep only half an eye on what is happening in the party - if that - and are drawn personally to Corbyn. They actually rely on being told what Jeremy wants and who he supports. He gets to do that through his database. And that means Momentum candidates take control of the levers of power inside the party so that when Jeremy does step down they still control things whoever is leader.
Of course. Just as Blair supporters still controlled the machine after he stepped down. Or Thatcher supporters controlled the Tory machine after she went.
The point I am trying to make is that Momentum and co are just another political trend that is a product of their time, and their time is now. When their time is over they will be gone, just as new Labour or Thatcherism are gone. There have been many previous attempts to entrench one faction or another in control of Labour and none of them have worked in the long run. And this one will be no different.
This is a much-touted theory among Conservatives. The only problem is that there isn't the slightest evidence of any regret on the part of those who voted Labour in June.
Well, lots of those people are still trying to stop Brexit, or at the very least protest heavily against it. I'm not expecting them to be grateful as and when Brexit occurs, but it does change the nature of their next vote (every vote being a mixture of retrospective and prospective).
But I do think the Conservatives need to choose our next leader very carefully!
If the Conservatives want to try to gain the votes of deserting Remain supporters after Brexit, they need to consider what message they are going to give to people who think they're deranged lunatics who have acted completely against the best interests of the country and inflicted lasting damage.
I tentatively suggest that might be a stiff proposition for the most impressive statesman or woman, and the Conservative party is not awash with candidates that fit that description.
Yep, Corn Laws and Tariff Reform were great stories, but it's always good to see a trilogy.
I was basing my comments on us doing an FTA with the EU. That will include provisions on regulatory alignment. In some cases, this will mean mirroring the EU - so we do what they do - in other cases it will mean a commitment not to diverge; this will probably be what happens with financial services. Of course, if there is no deal then it will inevitably be very different - but it looks like the government is ready to concede on just about everything to ensure that does not happen.
What does that mean for areas where we already differ from EU regulations? Our banking regulations are very different to EU regulations, especially on ring fencing. No, I think you're reading far too much into all this. It's goods regulations where alignment matters, and where I think the government will probably give way (though maybe as far as committing to abide by goods regulations for anything sold into the region and for anything "exported" to NI).
We are in the EU currently, so all our regulations and laws in whatever area are EU compatible or are not affected by the EU. Where we have an opt-out, that is agreed with the other member states. Regulatory alignment means two things: in some areas, we will actively mirror what the EU27 decides; in other areas we will not diverge from the EU - ie, we will not change anything unless there is agreement with the EU27. So, with financial services, we would keep things as they are; but if we wanted to make a change it would have to be something the EU27 were OK with. And that. of course, is where a judicial body of some kind comes in- ultimately it would decide what is and is not compatible with the final agreement.
"The allegations about the material and computer, now nine years old, are false, disreputable political smears from a discredited police officer acting in flagrant breach of his duty to keep the details of police investigations confidential, and amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination."
He's going to sue him for calling him 'discredited'?
And if they reject the deal? The EU won’t budge...
Hard Brexit unfortunately.
No, it's quite simple: you have a three-option referendum with the choices being accept the deal, reject it and crash out, or cancel Brexit. It'd be run using AV of course.
And if they reject the deal? The EU won’t budge...
Hard Brexit unfortunately.
However, if the Brexit is a result of a referendum rejecting the terms negotiated, then that is a massive get out of jail card for the government if it all goes wrong.
And if they reject the deal? The EU won’t budge...
Hard Brexit unfortunately.
No, it's quite simple: you have a three-option referendum with the choices being accept the deal, reject it and crash out, or cancel Brexit. It'd be run using AV of course.
Not obvious that it can be cancelled unilaterally. I'd anticipate that it would come at a price.
They'll vote for who Jon Lansman tells them to vote for.
I doubt that a majority of Labour Party members even know who Jon Lansman is.
No. Today's left are not the tightly-disciplined political obsessives of the 1980s and early 1990s. They are mostly political novices with a slightly starry-eyed perspective on Corbyn and Momentum but their policy positions are generally undeveloped and they are much too young to have much understanding of the 1970s Marxism that drove Corbyn and McDonnell. The Party is in a state of flux and the idea that it is on the road to becoming a latter-day version of the Soviet Communist Party is misplaced.
Again, that is what makes Lansman so powerful. Most Labour members keep only half an eye on what is happening in the party - if that - and are drawn personally to Corbyn. They actually rely on being told what Jeremy wants and who he supports. He gets to do that through his database. And that means Momentum candidates take control of the levers of power inside the party so that when Jeremy does step down they still control things whoever is leader.
Of course. Just as Blair supporters still controlled the machine after he stepped down. Or Thatcher supporters controlled the Tory machine after she went.
The point I am trying to make is that Momentum and co are just another political trend that is a product of their time, and their time is now. When their time is over they will be gone, just as new Labour or Thatcherism are gone. There have been many previous attempts to entrench one faction or another in control of Labour and none of them have worked in the long run. And this one will be no different.
I also think that sort of top down influence is not realistic in the internet and social media age. Twitter and such are much more organic than the top down discipline of Alastair Campbell, Mandleson and co.
That may be true in the longer term. But it is the case currently that all Momentum approved candidates win the elections they stand for if the vote is party-wide and done via the internet. And that is why Momentum is clearly in such a hurry to take over the party machinery. Once in control of it, they will be harder to remove.
Looks pretty like where we seem to be heading: in the SM and CU, but not in them.
For goods.
For services access to the EU market is just as important. There will need to be a deal cut on them. And that will involve "regulatory alignment". Northern Ireland - and hence the UK if we are to take David Davis at face value (and why shouldn't we) - cannot maintain an open border with the RoI and have a regulatory regime for financial services that runs contrary to the one in the EU, for example.
I think we can and we already do so.
We are currently in the EU so cannot have a financial services regime that runs contrary to EU laws and regulations.
There are already differences in the regulatory structures between Eire, the UK mainland and the EU.
I was basing my comments on us doing an FTA with the EU. That will include provisions on regulatory alignment. In some cases, this will mean mirroring the EU - so we do what they do - in other cases it will mean a commitment not to diverge; this will probably be what happens with financial services. Of course, if there is no deal then it will inevitably be very different - but it looks like the government is ready to concede on just about everything to ensure that does not happen.
What does that mean for areas where we already differ from EU regulations? Our banking regulations are very different to EU regulations, especially on ring fencing. No, I think you're reading far too much into all this. It's goods regulations where alignment matters, and where I think the government will probably give way (though maybe as far as committing to abide by goods regulations for anything sold into the region and for anything "exported" to NI).
We are in the EU currently, so all our regulations and laws in whatever area are EU compatible or are not affected by the EU. Where we have an opt-out, that is agreed with the other member states. Regulatory alignment means two things: in some areas, we will actively mirror what the EU27 decides; in other areas we will not diverge from the EU - ie, we will not change anything unless there is agreement with the EU27. So, with financial services, we would keep things as they are; but if we wanted to make a change it would have to be something the EU27 were OK with. And that. of course, is where a judicial body of some kind comes in- ultimately it would decide what is and is not compatible with the final agreement.
I was basing my comments on us doing an FTA with the EU. That will include provisions on regulatory alignment. In some cases, this will mean mirroring the EU - so we do what they do - in other cases it will mean a commitment not to diverge; this will probably be what happens with financial services. Of course, if there is no deal then it will inevitably be very different - but it looks like the government is ready to concede on just about everything to ensure that does not happen.
What does that mean for areas where we already differ from EU regulations? Our banking regulations are very different to EU regulations, especially on ring fencing. No, I think you're reading far too much into all this. It's goods regulations where alignment matters, and where I think the government will probably give way (though maybe as far as committing to abide by goods regulations for anything sold into the region and for anything "exported" to NI).
We are in the EU currently, so all our regulations and laws in whatever area are EU compatible or are not affected by the EU. Where we have an opt-out, that is agreed with the other member states. Regulatory alignment means two things: in some areas, we will actively mirror what the EU27 decides; in other areas we will not diverge from the EU - ie, we will not change anything unless there is agreement with the EU27. So, with financial services, we would keep things as they are; but if we wanted to make a change it would have to be something the EU27 were OK with. And that. of course, is where a judicial body of some kind comes in- ultimately it would decide what is and is not compatible with the final agreement.
I thought the single market for services was not yet complete? Not sure why the UK has to get agreement from the EU27 if they can't even agree amongst themselves what the regulations should be.
And if they reject the deal? The EU won’t budge...
Hard Brexit unfortunately.
No, it's quite simple: you have a three-option referendum with the choices being accept the deal, reject it and crash out, or cancel Brexit. It'd be run using AV of course.
Not obvious that it can be cancelled unilaterally. I'd anticipate that it would come at a price.
Agreed - if we got there (and I think we are heading to needing the three options) then it would need an agreement with the EU about what a 'cancel Brexit' option would mean. Clearly too late for us to be making an in principle decision without knowing what would be possible. And would need a final answer on whether A50 is revocable. I agree with those saying that it isn't, but it does clarify that Brexit can be cancelled if I'm wrong.
Again, that is what makes Lansman so powerful. Most Labour members keep only half an eye on what is happening in the party - if that - and are drawn personally to Corbyn. They actually rely on being told what Jeremy wants and who he supports. He gets to do that through his database. And that means Momentum candidates take control of the levers of power inside the party so that when Jeremy does step down they still control things whoever is leader.
Not really, although I agree about the "only half an eye". I'm a member of Momentum and get their emails (surprisingly infrequent - much less than the average charity). When there's a by-election they urge us to go and help. When an internal election comes round, they tell us who the Momentum candidates are and urge us to support them (there is no suggestion that this is in some way endorsed by Jeremy). And that's about it.
Yes. there's a default assumption among most members that Momentum-supported candidates will be helpful to Jeremy and the team and that that's a Good Thing, partly from political preference but also because many members got fed up with the in-fighting. The centrist insurgents overplayed their hand with the mass resignations and few members want to elect people who might do that again. So the Momentum candidates generally win, but there's not much ideological depth to it. As anothernick implies, it's perfectly possible that the same loyalist instincts would swing behind another leader in the future. The levers of power are frankly not very powerful in Labour, as the Corbyn critics who used to control them discovered when they tried to get rid of him.
There are a few places (Haringay, Watford spring to mind) where things are much more organised and left or right slates take each other on. But at CLP level the generalised loyalty is diffused by personal contacts, local issues, etc. and it all becomes less predictable. Media predictions (whether hopes or fears) of mass deselections remain wildly wide of the mark and more to do with journalists looking for a theme for their next piece.
Twitter isn't anywhere near as "organic" as stated. It is known that the vast majority of tweets that are actively engaged with come via a very small number of influencers.
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
I was basing my comments on us doing an FTA with the EU. That will include provisions on regulatory alignment. In some cases, this will mean mirroring the EU - so we do what they do - in other cases it will mean a commitment not to diverge; this will probably be what happens with financial services. Of course, if there is no deal then it will inevitably be very different - but it looks like the government is ready to concede on just about everything to ensure that does not happen.
What does that mean for areas where we already differ from EU regulations? Our banking regulations are very different to EU regulations, especially on ring fencing. No, I think you're reading far too much into all this. It's goods regulations where alignment matters, and where I think the government will probably give way (though maybe as far as committing to abide by goods regulations for anything sold into the region and for anything "exported" to NI).
We are in the EU currently, so all our regulations and laws in whatever area are EU compatible or are not affected by the EU. Where we have an opt-out, that is agreed with the other member states. Regulatory alignment means two things: in some areas, we will actively mirror what the EU27 decides; in other areas we will not diverge from the EU - ie, we will not change anything unless there is agreement with the EU27. So, with financial services, we would keep things as they are; but if we wanted to make a change it would have to be something the EU27 were OK with. And that. of course, is where a judicial body of some kind comes in- ultimately it would decide what is and is not compatible with the final agreement.
Like I said, I think you're reading far too much into it.
And if they reject the deal? The EU won’t budge...
Hard Brexit unfortunately.
No, it's quite simple: you have a three-option referendum with the choices being accept the deal, reject it and crash out, or cancel Brexit. It'd be run using AV of course.
The one thing we can guarantee is that the Tories are not suddenly going to decide to run a referendum under AV
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
Agree with your final sentence. I don't believe there is any majority in parliament or in the country for any plausible option, and of course in that scenario everyone piles in on whatever the Government is doing and assumes their favoured approach would be possible and popular. Who would be in Government through all of this huh?
Why did Labour expect to do badly right up to the exit poll on election day? That's the big mystery IMO.
The high command believed the opinion polls, just like every other professional including me. The amateur (Momentum and other) enthusiasts said "nonsense, we've got a wave coming and we're in with a shot", and we old-timers who'd heard it all before thought said "poor enthusiasts, they're going to be so disappointed".
That said, even old-timers felt HQ was being hysterical when they deployed us to places like Nottingham North, where Tories are as rare as gazelles.
BBC in new racism row after using footage of wrong Bollywood star in TV news obituary
Actor Shashi Kapoor died aged 79 on Monday, but the tribute to the star on the broadcaster's flagship news programme mistakenly used footage of Amitabh Bachchan and Rishi Kapoor.
Well, this is Alabama we're talking about, a state that still has in its constitution: "Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race."
Until 1996, another amendment specified only male citizens would have the vote.
Well, this is Alabama we're talking about, a state that still has in its constitution: "Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race."
Unsurprisingly, Roy Moore led the campaign against changing that particular provision of Alabama's constitution.
I was basing my comments on us doing an FTA with the EU. That will include provisions on regulatory alignment. In some cases, this will mean mirroring the EU - so we do what they do - in other cases it will mean a commitment not to diverge; this will probably be what happens with financial services. Of course, if there is no deal then it will inevitably be very different - but it looks like the government is ready to concede on just about everything to ensure that does not happen.
What does that mean for areas where we already differ from EU regulations? Our banking regulations are very different to EU regulations, especially on ring fencing. No, I think you're reading far too much into all this. It's goods regulations where alignment matters, and where I think the government will probably give way (though maybe as far as committing to abide by goods regulations for anything sold into the region and for anything "exported" to NI).
He's reading a lot into it, because he wants to read a lot into it, because it suits his Remain/Brexit is pointless agenda.
May cannot sign up to a deal that allows no latitude or freedom of manoeuvre on trade, regulation and immigration.
She will, I suspect, try and agree something that gives a lot of alignment in goods, allows a lot of freedom for high-skilled EU workers, and a bit more freedom to the UK in services, for a bit less EU access (passporting)
Florence: "So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes."
And..
"There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward.
There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means.
And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies."
So the deal will delineate each of those in turn. All the discussion at the moment (from journalists and excitable Remaiers) is latching on entirely to the last, whereas May will need to deliver something on the first two for the Deal to stick.
It also voted even more strongly to stay in the UK in 2002. In any case Rajoy is busy with Catalonia and is grateful for May's support for Spain on that
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
Agree with your final sentence. I don't believe there is any majority in parliament or in the country for any plausible option, and of course in that scenario everyone piles in on whatever the Government is doing and assumes their favoured approach would be possible and popular. Who would be in Government through all of this huh?
Comprehensive free trade, with low/no budgetary contributions and immigration control would win and settle it.
Why did Labour expect to do badly right up to the exit poll on election day? That's the big mystery IMO.
Because everybody believed the polls.
I thought their canvassing returns were pretty discouraging as well.
Talking to Labour canvassers in my patch, they all said the same. I am thinking that a lot of Labour types unhappy with Corbyn or the internal divisions gave their canvassers a hard time on the doorstep early doors, but when it came to it Corbyn proved better than they had anticipated and voting Tory was, for most of them, never a likely proposition.
Edit/ plus, a failing of evening canvassing is that it catches the middle aged and upwards, who are in. Younger voters are still at work, or out on the town, especially if they are renting accommodation that isn't particularly attractive to rush back to. This didn't matter so much when the age-differential in voting behaviour wasn't so marked, and when many of the poeple you missed were non-voters anyway. Now, it makes canvassing an unreliable way to gauge the mood.
Why did Labour expect to do badly right up to the exit poll on election day? That's the big mystery IMO.
I want to say because the youth turned out, who previously were downgraded by all mainstream pollsters because they previously did not, but that's not the whole story.
Not really, although I agree about the "only half an eye". I'm a member of Momentum and get their emails (surprisingly infrequent - much less than the average charity). When there's a by-election they urge us to go and help. When an internal election comes round, they tell us who the Momentum candidates are and urge us to support them (there is no suggestion that this is in some way endorsed by Jeremy). And that's about it.
Yes. there's a default assumption among most members that Momentum-supported candidates will be helpful to Jeremy and the team and that that's a Good Thing, partly from political preference but also because many members got fed up with the in-fighting. The centrist insurgents overplayed their hand with the mass resignations and few members want to elect people who might do that again. So the Momentum candidates generally win, but there's not much ideological depth to it. As anothernick implies, it's perfectly possible that the same loyalist instincts would swing behind another leader in the future. The levers of power are frankly not very powerful in Labour, as the Corbyn critics who used to control them discovered when they tried to get rid of him.
There are a few places (Haringay, Watford spring to mind) where things are much more organised and left or right slates take each other on. But at CLP level the generalised loyalty is diffused by personal contacts, local issues, etc. and it all becomes less predictable. Media predictions (whether hopes or fears) of mass deselections remain wildly wide of the mark and more to do with journalists looking for a theme for their next piece.
If Momentum controls the NEC - as it soon will - and has a majority of conference delegates - as it already does - what is to prevent the introduction of mandatory annual reselection of MPs and candidates, as well as mandatory re-elections of leaders? I agree with you totally about the lack of ideological depth among Labour members generally; and that is what makes the private company that Lansman controls so dangerous potentially. It is totally unaccountable but has a direct line of communication to a large number of relatively disengaged Labour members who believe in a general kind of way that Jeremy is a good soul and only wants what is best. When Momentum, which wears its support for Jeremy on its sleeve, says vote for this candidate or that proposal, the undoubted implication is that Jeremy wants this too - which he probably does, of course. Obviously, were Lansman to turn control of the database over to an accountable, elected leadership, then it would be very different. But he hasn't. He is its sole owner. He really is very smart, which is probably how he became a multimillionaire, of course!
Roy Moore's Spokeswoman Said His Opponent Would Support Killing A CNN Anchor's "Unborn Child"
In a pretty wild interview with CNN anchor Poppy Harlow on Tuesday, Roy Moore's campaign spokeswoman, Janet Porter, brought up Harlow's "unborn child" twice to defend the Alabama Senate candidate against allegations of child molestation and sexual misconduct.
It also voted even more strongly to stay in the UK in 2002. In any case Rajoy is busy with Catalonia and is grateful for May's support for Spain on that
Unlikely allies, unless they bring up Gibraltar at the last minute to scupper any deal!
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
If we beg to stay out of desperation then the danegeld will be simple: You can stay but kiss goodbye the rebate.
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
If we beg to stay out of desperation then the danegeld will be simple: You can stay but kiss goodbye the rebate.
Yep. The EU will want to teach a lesson, just as it did with Greece.
"The allegations about the material and computer, now nine years old, are false, disreputable political smears from a discredited police officer acting in flagrant breach of his duty to keep the details of police investigations confidential, and amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination."
He's going to sue him for calling him 'discredited'?
I think the liar accusation .
He'd probably be better off using his time working out how he's going to keep himself out of the big house. That he's continuing his decade old vendetta against Green with the threat of legal action makes him look even more bent.
Not really, although I agree about the "only half an eye". I'm a member of Momentum and get their emails (surprisingly infrequent - much less than the average charity). When there's a by-election they urge us to go and help. When an internal election comes round, they tell us who the Momentum candidates are and urge us to support them (there is no suggestion that this is in some way endorsed by Jeremy). And that's about it.
snip
There are a few places (Haringay, Watford spring to mind) where things are much more organised and left or right slates take each other on. But at CLP level the generalised loyalty is diffused by personal contacts, local issues, etc. and it all becomes less predictable. Media predictions (whether hopes or fears) of mass deselections remain wildly wide of the mark and more to do with journalists looking for a theme for their next piece.
If Momentum controls the NEC - as it soon will - and has a majority of conference delegates - as it already does - what is to prevent the introduction of mandatory annual reselection of MPs and candidates, as well as mandatory re-elections of leaders? I agree with you totally about the lack of ideological depth among Labour members generally; and that is what makes the private company that Lansman controls so dangerous potentially. It is totally unaccountable but has a direct line of communication to a large number of relatively disengaged Labour members who believe in a general kind of way that Jeremy is a good soul and only wants what is best. When Momentum, which wears its support for Jeremy on its sleeve, says vote for this candidate or that proposal, the undoubted implication is that Jeremy wants this too - which he probably does, of course. Obviously, were Lansman to turn control of the database over to an accountable, elected leadership, then it would be very different. But he hasn't. He is its sole owner. He really is very smart, which is probably how he became a multimillionaire, of course!
"how he became a multimillionaire, of course!"
Hope he's ready to pay up big time in tax for all the sweeties his leader has promised.
I believe Theresa May fairly carefully thinks through what she says, and meant what she said in the Lancaster House and Florence speeches.
The question is whether or not the EU will tango.
The EU and the Uk don't see eye to eye. The EU would not give Cameron any concessions. Don't expect any with the Leave negotiations. That's why we are leaving in the first place.
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
Agree with your final sentence. I don't believe there is any majority in parliament or in the country for any plausible option, and of course in that scenario everyone piles in on whatever the Government is doing and assumes their favoured approach would be possible and popular. Who would be in Government through all of this huh?
Comprehensive free trade, with low/no budgetary contributions and immigration control would win and settle it.
But, that won't be on offer.
Just to add to that, in theory what should be on offer (not that the UK electorate would buy it) is a form of single market lite, without freedom of movement and only in some areas, where the UK also gets a vote on the rules for that aspect of the single market for which it stays within.
The EU often says the EU cannot be "a la carte" but the thing is that a la carte means you get more choice, but you pay more too, as opposed to full membership or "prix fixe".
So I can't see why the EU couldn't offer (in principle) a la carte for even higher budgetary net contributions, for example.
The obstacles are more political, as it'd require a treaty change to how the EU's institutions and procedures work, and we wouldn't ever agree to pay even more money.
Thousands of Spanish workers cross every day. Expect the EU to make things difficult for Gibraltar so the Spanish can suggest the solution is that Gibraltar unites with Spain in the way Ireland wants NI to unite with them.
Brexit isn't going to happen, is it. Doesn't bother me since I voted Remain. But the 52% won't be happy.
Of course it is, both Corbyn and May still back Brexit
The dream world you inhabit is a wondrous place.
It is the truth, Corbyn knows if he abandons Brexit he loses the third of Labour voters who voted Leave and the 20% of 2015 UKIP voters who voted for him in 2017 and bang goes his chance of becoming PM
It also voted even more strongly to stay in the UK in 2002. In any case Rajoy is busy with Catalonia and is grateful for May's support for Spain on that
Unlikely allies, unless they bring up Gibraltar at the last minute to scupper any deal!
Brexit isn't going to happen, is it. Doesn't bother me since I voted Remain. But the 52% won't be happy.
Of course it is, both Corbyn and May still back Brexit
The dream world you inhabit is a wondrous place.
It is the truth, Corbyn knows if he abandons Leave he loses the third of Labour voters who voted Leave and the 20% of 2015 UKIP voters who voted for him in 2015 and bang goes his chance of becoming PM
May very probably voted Remain and Corbyn may well have done.
Once the blind alley of Brexit becomes clearer, Labour will be more confident of hanging onto its leave voters. It'll be the Tories tied to the sinking ship.
Brexit isn't going to happen, is it. Doesn't bother me since I voted Remain. But the 52% won't be happy.
Of course it is, both Corbyn and May still back Brexit
The dream world you inhabit is a wondrous place.
It is the truth, Corbyn knows if he abandons Brexit he loses the third of Labour voters who voted Leave and the 20% of 2015 UKIP voters who voted for him in 2017 and bang goes his chance of becoming PM
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
Agree with your final sentence. I don't believe there is any majority in parliament or in the country for any plausible option, and of course in that scenario everyone piles in on whatever the Government is doing and assumes their favoured approach would be possible and popular. Who would be in Government through all of this huh?
Comprehensive free trade, with low/no budgetary contributions and immigration control would win and settle it.
But, that won't be on offer.
Just to add to that, in theory what should be on offer (not that the UK electorate would buy it) is a form of single market lite, without freedom of movement and only in some areas, where the UK also gets a vote on the rules for that aspect of the single market for which it stays within.
The EU often says the EU cannot be "a la carte" but the thing is that a la carte means you get more choice, but you pay more too, as opposed to full membership or "prix fixe".
So I can't see why the EU couldn't offer (in principle) a la carte for even higher budgetary net contributions, for example.
The obstacles are more political, as it'd require a treaty change to how the EU's institutions and procedures work, and we wouldn't ever agree to pay even more money.
We want EVERYTHING - for FREE and are puzzled when the other side does not agree.
The Survation poll is no surprise. The real cost of Brexit is becoming clearer by the day. After yesterday, there will be another shift.
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
If we beg to stay out of desperation then the danegeld will be simple: You can stay but kiss goodbye the rebate.
This is a much-touted theory among Conservatives. The only problem is that there isn't the slightest evidence of any regret on the part of those who voted Labour in June.
Well, lots of those people are still trying to stop Brexit, or at the very least protest heavily against it. I'm not expecting them to be grateful as and when Brexit occurs, but it does change the nature of their next vote (every vote being a mixture of retrospective and prospective).
But I do think the Conservatives need to choose our next leader very carefully!
If the Conservatives want to try to gain the votes of deserting Remain supporters after Brexit, they need to consider what message they are going to give to people who think they're deranged lunatics who have acted completely against the best interests of the country and inflicted lasting damage.
I tentatively suggest that might be a stiff proposition for the most impressive statesman or woman, and the Conservative party is not awash with candidates that fit that description.
alternatively one could say most voters dont care about Brexit that much, ages and housing matter more to them
Just to add to that, in theory what should be on offer (not that the UK electorate would buy it) is a form of single market lite, without freedom of movement and only in some areas, where the UK also gets a vote on the rules for that aspect of the single market for which it stays within.
The EU often says the EU cannot be "a la carte" but the thing is that a la carte means you get more choice, but you pay more too, as opposed to full membership or "prix fixe".
So I can't see why the EU couldn't offer (in principle) a la carte for even higher budgetary net contributions, for example.
The obstacles are more political, as it'd require a treaty change to how the EU's institutions and procedures work, and we wouldn't ever agree to pay even more money.
That an obstacle might be 'political', doesn't make it ill-founded.
For example, if we had single market access on a similar basis as now but had restrictions on free movement, then London could suck in Eurozone financial services, but workers from across the EU would need a work permit to take up employment in the City. That would be an intolerable position.
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins) (2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins) (3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
If we beg to stay out of desperation then the danegeld will be simple: You can stay but kiss goodbye the rebate.
"The allegations about the material and computer, now nine years old, are false, disreputable political smears from a discredited police officer acting in flagrant breach of his duty to keep the details of police investigations confidential, and amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination."
He's going to sue him for calling him 'discredited'?
I think the liar accusation .
He'd probably be better off using his time working out how he's going to keep himself out of the big house. That he's continuing his decade old vendetta against Green with the threat of legal action makes him look even more bent.
Reading the guardian article ,he states he was not the source of the Sunday Times article.The journalist told him that his statement was from the leveson enquiry.Anyways you have already made your mind up ,as you keep using the word bent.
Comments
Edit: apparently I can’t read
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/938078637944983553
The only thing that is surprising is they nailed the weighting dead on fist time, I thought they'd need a couple.of elections to calibrate the model.
I think I'll donate those winnings to the NSPCC
The point I am trying to make is that Momentum and co are just another political trend that is a product of their time, and their time is now. When their time is over they will be gone, just as new Labour or Thatcherism are gone. There have been many previous attempts to entrench one faction or another in control of Labour and none of them have worked in the long run. And this one will be no different.
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/938083632203337729
He's going to sue him for calling him 'discredited'?
'It was the democratic will of the people'
https://mobile.twitter.com/Number10gov/status/938085760275812352
Yes. there's a default assumption among most members that Momentum-supported candidates will be helpful to Jeremy and the team and that that's a Good Thing, partly from political preference but also because many members got fed up with the in-fighting. The centrist insurgents overplayed their hand with the mass resignations and few members want to elect people who might do that again. So the Momentum candidates generally win, but there's not much ideological depth to it. As anothernick implies, it's perfectly possible that the same loyalist instincts would swing behind another leader in the future. The levers of power are frankly not very powerful in Labour, as the Corbyn critics who used to control them discovered when they tried to get rid of him.
There are a few places (Haringay, Watford spring to mind) where things are much more organised and left or right slates take each other on. But at CLP level the generalised loyalty is diffused by personal contacts, local issues, etc. and it all becomes less predictable. Media predictions (whether hopes or fears) of mass deselections remain wildly wide of the mark and more to do with journalists looking for a theme for their next piece.
(1) Deal or no deal (no deal wins)
(2) Deal or standard EU accession state terms (deal wins)
(3) Deal or existing UK terms (pre-Dave's deal - probably TCTC)
I don't think the EU are putting Dave's deal back on the table, yet alone an improved offer. But they might be willing to interpret a rejection of the deal (3) subject to agreement. This would be based on EU27 unilaterally agreeing to extend A50 indefinitely (limbo) until such time a new treaty is agreed, at which point the UK would be locked in again.
Personally, I think they'd demand a bit of extra danegeld for wasting everyone's time.
Whatever we picked the UK would regret it very quickly.
Despite whipping a vote against membership of them...
Guido has a nice list of their various positions on the matter: https://order-order.com/2017/12/05/shadow-cabinet-brexit-positions-in-full/
That said, even old-timers felt HQ was being hysterical when they deployed us to places like Nottingham North, where Tories are as rare as gazelles.
Actor Shashi Kapoor died aged 79 on Monday, but the tribute to the star on the broadcaster's flagship news programme mistakenly used footage of Amitabh Bachchan and Rishi Kapoor.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/05/bbc-new-racism-row-using-footage-wrong-bollywood-star-tv-news/
Were they all asleep at their desks again?
Until 1996, another amendment specified only male citizens would have the vote.
https://twitter.com/MarkitEconomics/status/938083560338096129/photo/1
May cannot sign up to a deal that allows no latitude or freedom of manoeuvre on trade, regulation and immigration.
She will, I suspect, try and agree something that gives a lot of alignment in goods, allows a lot of freedom for high-skilled EU workers, and a bit more freedom to the UK in services, for a bit less EU access (passporting)
Florence: "So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes."
And..
"There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward.
There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means.
And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies."
So the deal will delineate each of those in turn. All the discussion at the moment (from journalists and excitable Remaiers) is latching on entirely to the last, whereas May will need to deliver something on the first two for the Deal to stick.
But, that won't be on offer.
Edit/ plus, a failing of evening canvassing is that it catches the middle aged and upwards, who are in. Younger voters are still at work, or out on the town, especially if they are renting accommodation that isn't particularly attractive to rush back to. This didn't matter so much when the age-differential in voting behaviour wasn't so marked, and when many of the poeple you missed were non-voters anyway. Now, it makes canvassing an unreliable way to gauge the mood.
The question is whether or not the EU will tango.
Unfortunately, the consequences of not delivering on the referendum vote are anybody's guess, but are not going to be pleasant that's for sure.
I can't see how it can be done without a 2nd referendum.
Hope he's ready to pay up big time in tax for all the sweeties his leader has promised.
Or is the money in the Cayman Islands?
The EU often says the EU cannot be "a la carte" but the thing is that a la carte means you get more choice, but you pay more too, as opposed to full membership or "prix fixe".
So I can't see why the EU couldn't offer (in principle) a la carte for even higher budgetary net contributions, for example.
The obstacles are more political, as it'd require a treaty change to how the EU's institutions and procedures work, and we wouldn't ever agree to pay even more money.
Once the blind alley of Brexit becomes clearer, Labour will be more confident of hanging onto its leave voters. It'll be the Tories tied to the sinking ship.
The Survation poll is no surprise. The real cost of Brexit is becoming clearer by the day. After yesterday, there will be another shift.
For example, if we had single market access on a similar basis as now but had restrictions on free movement, then London could suck in Eurozone financial services, but workers from across the EU would need a work permit to take up employment in the City. That would be an intolerable position.