At some point in the Brexit process, perhaps even now, Labour strategy has to be to that an immediate change of government would be unwise. It may be that the trajectory is poor now, but, if that's the case, then its sort of predictably poor. A change of government might open paths of really quite bad outcomes.
Their golden time to aim at, for them, is immediately post deal. They can pick and choose what they really think is bad, and have no worries at all if something that they quietly thought was good finishes up as bad.
Rees-Mogg is the obvious next leader choice for the Tories. He, I think, (just my view) represents a sort of patrician conservatism that has long gone out of fashion. That's a good thing in that political views are so scrambled at the moment that a little bit of stiffening wouldn't go amiss. Once normal service resumes then perhaps such a strongly opinionated leader will be less attractive.
Yes, I agree with you on timing. A change pre Brexit and Labour will either (in the event of delivering any sort of Brexit) see large scale desertion from their largely pro EU support base or (in the event of reversing Brexit) write off the remaining Leavers who voted Labour believing the line that GE 2017 was not mainly about Brexit.
Sometimes it's best to put your opponents in, with an eye to the long term. Had Brown gone to the country in late 2007 and lost narrowly, leaving Cameron and Osborne (who had thus far signed up to Labour's net borrowing plans in full) to cope with the consequences of the subsequent 2008 financial crash, Labour would have romped back in 2012 and would still be in government now.
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.
He's pursuing a decade old vendetta and calling it public interest. He, and his evidence stealing chum, need some time inside to be educated on public interest.
This is all good sport but the spin line that the ex-coppers are illegally leaking evidence surely begs the question of whether there was any evidence to leak.
One of them stole it. And it was the only piece of evidence that he stole in his whole career. And his mate with a grudge didn't know that he'd stolen it.
I think fabrication is more likely than that crock of bottom waste.
And, the evidence was ordered to be destroyed. It shouldn't exist. The bent cops shouldn't talk about it. The state broadcaster shouldn't broadcast the bent cops talking about it. They also shouldn't continue talking about any of the detail of the evidence when the current head cop in the UK is suggesting that they were probably complicit in a crime in its release.
None of our supposed legal brains answered a hypothetical question I put to them the other day; if there were a current court case into an alleged sexual assault by Green, would this evidence be admissible? Or would the judge insist that it be disregarded? Or something else?
However this evidence came to be, it may have been a virus, a filthy intern, a fabrication, a filthy MP, it has to be disregarded because of how it was obtained. We can't let cops get away with this sort of thing. This is a disgusting abuse of their power, and if the good cops investigating this don't hammer these guys hard I will despair.
The police are there to deal with crime. The only crimes committed here were by bent cops. My former cop grandfather would be appalled by this if he were alive to see it.
Brexit won but that does not mean it has to be Brexit for the hardline Brexiteers. There should be a Brexit that is satisfactory to the 48 per cent and will stand the test of time.
Hmm, you mean compromise. A pity then that Europhiles weren’t interested in such a concept as they ploughed on at Maastricht, Lisbon etc. But no they concentrated on pretending that no one cared about the EU and insulting anyone who did not share their view of the world as, well, “swivel eyed loon mob” for example (courtesy of foxinsoxuk, this very thread, sigh).
@bbclaurak: No call between May and Foster happening tonight, I'm told a call was never arranged, and in any case, doesn't sound like there's v much to talk about yet - no Eurostar for us tomorrow morning it seems
So the document that was agreed by the Irish PM Leo Varadkar and the EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker had three border scenarios.
Scenario "A" said the border would be kept open via a trade deal, to be negotiated in those all-important phase two talks.
However if those trade talks never happened or did not involve frictionless trade between the UK and the rest of the EU, or trade without customs checks, there could possibly be a technological solution - known as Scenario "B" - whereby higher value goods traffic would screened by the magic of digital technology, with only the rarest of human and traffic-delaying intervention.
Finally if the rest of the EU was not seduced by that tech plan, there was Scenario "C", the one that said in a worst case (for the UK), there would be regulatory "alignment" between the Republic and the EU, thus obviating the need for most customs checks (as per my last three or four posts) . Now to the frustration of the PM, all the fuss and bother has been about Scenario C, the one she neither wants nor thinks is likely.
Worth remembering the DUP threw their toys out of the pram last time before agreeing a very belated S&C deal with the Tories.
A tungsten tipped Brexit and a new GE doesn't suit them either so I still expect a deal, but possibly not until over the weekend, or even early next week.
Very different circumstances. The DUP have clear red lines and they are clearly very comfortable with their position here. They're the one player in this that really won't mind if everything falls over, so long as their red line is protected.
If a deal is eventually done this week, it won't be by the DUP caving in.
I'm not so sure about that actually. But I am sure they are very good at convincing people that is the case.
Unlike Theresa May.
There's a certain irony that the two groups with most to lose from an Uncontrolled Brexit* are the Northern Irish and the Irish. And yet they are the two most (apparently) recalcitrant groups.
This is a game of brinkmanship, where both groups are desperate for a deal, but both feel obliged to posture like crazy.
The DUP and Irish government positions are not comparable.
The DUP care far more about the integrity of the UK than they do about whether some restrictions of trade re-emerge with the Irish Republic. It's their very raison d'etre. Rightly, they also realise that whatever the Irish government might be saying now, in practice some practical accommodation will be reached come March 2019 or shortly afterwards, because that is what the Irish Government clearly want.
The Irish government, on the other hand, seem desperate to avoid future restrictions on trade with Northern Ireland which is why their ploy of threatening to put in jeopardy the commencement of negotiations aimed at avoiding restrictions of trade from 2019 is so absurdly laughable. It's MAD i.e. akin to threatening Mutually Assured Destruction, cold war style. The Irish have a very weak hand and it is time for their bluff to be called. Had the UK Government any bottle, it would have done so itself.
Labour is usually described as having ruled out membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union in its 2017 election manifesto (though it has since supported remaining in both for a two-year transition period). In reality, it did no such thing. The party promised a "strong emphasis" on retaining "the benefits" of the Single Market and the Customs Union, and stated that "freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union". This was an ambiguous position designed to satisfy Remain and Leave voters and unite the Parliamentary Labour Party - and it worked rather well. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/12/labour-keeping-all-brexit-options-open-including-no-brexit
Grasping at straws there. From the manifesto "Labour will work with global trading partners to develop ‘best-in-class’ free trade and investment agreements that remove trade barriers and promote skilled jobs and high standards." - Not possible inside the Customs Union. "Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change" - Not possible inside the Single Market "Labour will develop and implement fair immigration rules." - Not possible inside the Single Market. "We will rejoin the Government Procurement Agreement" - Not possible inside the Single Market or the Customs Union
Ever since Corbyn took over, Labour have been very careful to commit themselves to nothing, at the
Nobody knows what either of these two parties stand for nowadays.
It was the rump Blairrite wing trying to score points over the leadership. It was so blatantly obvious that by going through the nae lobby, just showed contempt for the CCP.
If we, as a country, decide to vote Labour at the next election, which version of Labour will come into power and take decisions in our name?
Won't be the Blairrites, they are now so thoroughly discredited in the minds of the membership, that those still trying to hold to the New Labour doctrine are now in the insignificant minority. Any hope of advancement to the cabinet or party means that they will have to follow Red Labour or explain to the local Party activists in their constituencies, why not.
So the document that was agreed by the Irish PM Leo Varadkar and the EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker had three border scenarios.
Scenario "A" said the border would be kept open via a trade deal, to be negotiated in those all-important phase two talks.
However if those trade talks never happened or did not involve frictionless trade between the UK and the rest of the EU, or trade without customs checks, there could possibly be a technological solution - known as Scenario "B" - whereby higher value goods traffic would screened by the magic of digital technology, with only the rarest of human and traffic-delaying intervention.
Finally if the rest of the EU was not seduced by that tech plan, there was Scenario "C", the one that said in a worst case (for the UK), there would be regulatory "alignment" between the Republic and the EU, thus obviating the need for most customs checks (as per my last three or four posts) . Now to the frustration of the PM, all the fuss and bother has been about Scenario C, the one she neither wants nor thinks is likely.
Just as there were many Tories in London who voted Corbyn because of Brexit, there were also many Labour and UKIP supporters who voted Corbyn because he promised he would not go back on Brexit.
In spite of the desertion of Europhile Tories, May still managed to end up as the largest party. If Corbyn decides to renege on Brexit there is only one direction his support is going in and that is down.
I am sure that that has been true. It might even still be true. But will it be true indefinitely? The twists and turns of the Brexit negotiations will be throwing up all sorts of issues. Most of them will tend to be drawbacks to leaving that nobody anticipated. Support for Brexit is almost certainly going to wane to some extent. It isn't as if Labour is that far away from the winning post any more. Shifting to outright opposition might well be just that extra oomph Labour needs to get back in.
They would lose more supporters than they would gain.
So the document that was agreed by the Irish PM Leo Varadkar and the EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker had three border scenarios.
Scenario "A" said the border would be kept open via a trade deal, to be negotiated in those all-important phase two talks.
However if those trade talks never happened or did not involve frictionless trade between the UK and the rest of the EU, or trade without customs checks, there could possibly be a technological solution - known as Scenario "B" - whereby higher value goods traffic would screened by the magic of digital technology, with only the rarest of human and traffic-delaying intervention.
Finally if the rest of the EU was not seduced by that tech plan, there was Scenario "C", the one that said in a worst case (for the UK), there would be regulatory "alignment" between the Republic and the EU, thus obviating the need for most customs checks (as per my last three or four posts) . Now to the frustration of the PM, all the fuss and bother has been about Scenario C, the one she neither wants nor thinks is likely.
So May should just say that the EU need to accept scenario B, which is of course exactly what the UK has been proposing for months and that scenario C should be off the table. All this does is expose the fact that this whole row is nothing to do with the border, it is to do with the EU trying to force the UK to accept EU regulation as part of any trade deal before the discussions have even started.
In talks with Spanish PM Rajoy at No 10 May stresses her support for Spain over Catalonia and respect for the rule of law and Rajoy thanks her and says she is doing a 'sterling job' in the Brexit negotiations
So the document that was agreed by the Irish PM Leo Varadkar and the EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker had three border scenarios.
Scenario "A" said the border would be kept open via a trade deal, to be negotiated in those all-important phase two talks.
However if those trade talks never happened or did not involve frictionless trade between the UK and the rest of the EU, or trade without customs checks, there could possibly be a technological solution - known as Scenario "B" - whereby higher value goods traffic would screened by the magic of digital technology, with only the rarest of human and traffic-delaying intervention.
Finally if the rest of the EU was not seduced by that tech plan, there was Scenario "C", the one that said in a worst case (for the UK), there would be regulatory "alignment" between the Republic and the EU, thus obviating the need for most customs checks (as per my last three or four posts) . Now to the frustration of the PM, all the fuss and bother has been about Scenario C, the one she neither wants nor thinks is likely.
So May should just say that the EU need to accept scenario B, which is of course exactly what the UK has been proposing for months and that scenario C should be off the table. All this does is expose the fact that this whole row is nothing to do with the border, it is to do with the EU trying to force the UK to accept EU regulation as part of any trade deal before the discussions have even started.
Na, that wouldn't fit the narrative of the UK conceding on every point.
At some point in the Brexit process, perhaps even now, Labour strategy has to be to that an immediate change of government would be unwise. It may be that the trajectory is poor now, but, if that's the case, then its sort of predictably poor. A change of government might open paths of really quite bad outcomes.
Their golden time to aim at, for them, is immediately post deal. They can pick and choose what they really think is bad, and have no worries at all if something that they quietly thought was good finishes up as bad.
Rees-Mogg is the obvious next leader choice for the Tories. He, I think, (just my view) represents a sort of patrician conservatism that has long gone out of fashion. That's a good thing in that political views are so scrambled at the moment that a little bit of stiffening wouldn't go amiss. Once normal service resumes then perhaps such a strongly opinionated leader will be less attractive.
There is never a good time or a bad time, there is only now! The best tactical option for the Tories is to call a GE, lose, and allow the LP to take the blame for the mess they've caused. They would have the time to sort out the leadership problem and blood a new shadow cabinet before the following GE. It would also allow them to rebuild the membership at a local level to provide the key workers and potential candidates for the future. The downside is that they are now so tainted by the incompetence of the present executive that no one will go near them for a couple of generations.
42% of the electorate have already voted for the current executive against Corbyn and even now he is still short of a majority in most polls
Yes indeed folks, IDS, an intellectual titan amongst politicians of the last hundred years.
IDS is correct. At the time of the Florence speech May was told by Barnier that NI was sorted and it was just about the money and ECJ. When she conceded on those, suddenly NI became an issue again. Typical of how the EU negotiate and totally unacceptable and in bad faith. All she had to do was tell them to get stuffed, put her offer on the bill and sit back. Instead she made it clear that she will capitulate on anything so now she will never get away from thjs - the EU are determined to impose their regulations on the UK after Brexit.
JRM was quite right that this is a red line. Hopefully he will see his way to challenging May for the leadership directly if she signs up for this.
The Leader of the Opposition was busy causing more embarrassment to the Executive by winning on Universal Credit motion. It's just a heap of treasure that keeps on growing...
Comments
Sometimes it's best to put your opponents in, with an eye to the long term. Had Brown gone to the country in late 2007 and lost narrowly, leaving Cameron and Osborne (who had thus far signed up to Labour's net borrowing plans in full) to cope with the consequences of the subsequent 2008 financial crash, Labour would have romped back in 2012 and would still be in government now.
None of our supposed legal brains answered a hypothetical question I put to them the other day; if there were a current court case into an alleged sexual assault by Green, would this evidence be admissible? Or would the judge insist that it be disregarded? Or something else?
However this evidence came to be, it may have been a virus, a filthy intern, a fabrication, a filthy MP, it has to be disregarded because of how it was obtained. We can't let cops get away with this sort of thing. This is a disgusting abuse of their power, and if the good cops investigating this don't hammer these guys hard I will despair.
The police are there to deal with crime. The only crimes committed here were by bent cops. My former cop grandfather would be appalled by this if he were alive to see it.
Brexit won but that does not mean it has to be Brexit for the hardline Brexiteers. There should be a Brexit that is satisfactory to the 48 per cent and will stand the test of time.
Hmm, you mean compromise. A pity then that Europhiles weren’t interested in such a concept as they ploughed on at Maastricht, Lisbon etc. But no they concentrated on pretending that no one cared about the EU and insulting anyone who did not share their view of the world as, well, “swivel eyed loon mob” for example (courtesy of foxinsoxuk, this very thread, sigh).
Scenario "A" said the border would be kept open via a trade deal, to be negotiated in those all-important phase two talks.
However if those trade talks never happened or did not involve frictionless trade between the UK and the rest of the EU, or trade without customs checks, there could possibly be a technological solution - known as Scenario "B" - whereby higher value goods traffic would screened by the magic of digital technology, with only the rarest of human and traffic-delaying intervention.
Finally if the rest of the EU was not seduced by that tech plan, there was Scenario "C", the one that said in a worst case (for the UK), there would be regulatory "alignment" between the Republic and the EU, thus obviating the need for most customs checks (as per my last three or four posts)
.
Now to the frustration of the PM, all the fuss and bother has been about Scenario C, the one she neither wants nor thinks is likely.
https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/posts/1958744314450304
The DUP care far more about the integrity of the UK than they do about whether some restrictions of trade re-emerge with the Irish Republic. It's their very raison d'etre. Rightly, they also realise that whatever the Irish government might be saying now, in practice some practical accommodation will be reached come March 2019 or shortly afterwards, because that is what the Irish Government clearly want.
The Irish government, on the other hand, seem desperate to avoid future restrictions on trade with Northern Ireland which is why their ploy of threatening to put in jeopardy the commencement of negotiations aimed at avoiding restrictions of trade from 2019 is so absurdly laughable. It's MAD i.e. akin to threatening Mutually Assured Destruction, cold war style. The Irish have a very weak hand and it is time for their bluff to be called. Had the UK Government any bottle, it would have done so itself.
B definitely doesn’t involve alignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-jpgvmEu4&feature=player_embedded
Just Trump considering a Blackwater/Ollie North plan for a network of mercenary spies to circumvent the existing US Intelligence apparatus.
JRM was quite right that this is a red line. Hopefully he will see his way to challenging May for the leadership directly if she signs up for this.