I think May survives for now, with polls still almost neck and neck between the Tories and Labour there is no urgent political need for a change and it would be gross self indulgence as David Herdson says for the Tories to indulge in a leadership election which will cut down even more the limited timespan for the country to agree a Brexit deal with the EU
The Times is reporting that May has cancelled preparations for her planned Brexit speech because of cabinet splits. Where’s the leadership?
Whoever leads the Tories the Brexit position will likely be the same with a transition followed by leaving the single market and customs union and ending free movement and negotiating for a FTA.
Unless Mogg wins of course which is not impossible if he gets to the membership, then it would be full, hard Brexit with no transition period at all
I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.
(Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.
I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.
Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.
Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
Jacob wouldn’t naively answer any question he should deflect: he’d answer them truthfully and accurately in full knowledge of the consequences.
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.
Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
He could go to that pub in Sedgefield where Blair took Bush. There's a farmer's field nearby for the VH-60N to land in and they'll probably like Trump's particular brand of simple minded nonsense up there.
May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.
Which was why her reshuffle was so poorly received by MPs - given she is going, almost certainly within 18 months, it had to be used promote those who were the someone like Jonny Mercer brigade. Instead, she circled the wagons. Not what the Party needed.
The case for letting Boris have a go now is that he would have the opportunity to make that wholesale change. And if he proves to be not up to the job, then one of those given a leg up can take over before 2022.
The case against is that Boris might not be the man to be given Brexit as his first massive challenge in Government.....
Why not?
Boris would be the perfect man to be given Brexit in a "Nixon goes to China" kind of way. He's the public's face of Brexit and whatever deal he agrees (and the Civil Service will ensure a deal gets agreed) will be more acceptable as a result.
That would be the hope. There's no obvious similarity between Nixon and Johnson. I am talking about Nixon's good points. Also selling Brexit outcomes is the job Johnson should be doing now and is absolutely NOT doing. Maybe Johnson has selfish reasons to undermine May and that he could sell Brexit but chooses not to at this stage. It doesn't inspire confidence however.
If it is Michael Gove I will vote Labour, even if the Jezaster is still leading them.
I am now in the run in to new exams at GCSE, designed by Gove. Three weeks ago, the entire assessment mechanism was changed. All the question weightings, all the markschemes, all the layouts.
At the same time, OFQUAL have also made it harder to get a level 5 than to get a level 8 in history - for a 5 you have to analyse and evaluate, for an 8 you only have to evaluate. In theory at least therefore you can get a level 8 with a one sentence answer, but need three paragraphs for a 5...
This is down to Gove and his inability to do things - even things that might be good in practice - slowly and with due regard to logistics. If he were in charge we'd have a transition deal that was far less forensically prepared than one by Davis - and that should not be taken as an endorsement of Davis. He'd probably absent-mindedly declare that all banks need to be based in Loudon instead of London for regulatory purposes and sign off without noticing he's handed over our entire banking sector to the Americans.
The only thing to say in Gove's favour is he is not Nicky Morgan - who is so stupid she thought the head of OFQUAL who oversaw this total shambles would are a good candidate as head of OFSTED, which is now also not unexpectedly collapsing in an undignified heap of chaos, inconsistency and understaffing.
You are of course entirely wrong about Gove who is by far the best minister we have had in a very long time. Given how much he has rightly been lauded at Justice and DEFRA and the fact that the education system was frankly not fit for purpose for many years I am afraid I cannot take your comments seriously.
You clearly have little knowledge of what he did at education, dismissing ydoether's experience like that. Similarly at the primary level, he entirely abolished a reasonably functioning national system of assessment, and told schools to sort out a replacement from themselves. Schools are to this day still struggling to implement a replacement system. There are other examples.
Gove has a remarkable confidence in his ideas, and is not easily dissuaded that he is wrong. That can be a strength, but it can also be an enormous weakness.
Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.
Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
He could go to that pub in Sedgefield where Blair took Bush. There's a farmer's field nearby for the VH-60N to land in and they'll probably like Trump's particular brand of simple minded nonsense up there.
Yes, everybody who lives in the country is extremely stupid. Farmers especially.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
Gove or Boris or any other prominent Brexiteer pretty much guarantees Labour 40% of the vote - pre or post Brexit. The Tories would be much better advised to skip a generation and put new talent in front of the public. The problem is that it’s impossible to do because May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.
I suspect you are indulging in some wishful thinking in your first sentence. Corbyn vs Johnson would be a contest of minnows and I think we would all be hard pushed to predict the result.
I do however agree with your proposed cure for the Tory party.
Putting a prominent Brexiteer in charge of the Tories drives Remain voters to Labour, in my view. Tories and libertarians like Gove. Others are less keen.
The Tories led by a zealous Brexiter, rather than someone who apparently didn't want it and is just trying to make the best of it, could even lead to a LibDem revival.
Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.
Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
He could go to that pub in Sedgefield where Blair took Bush. There's a farmer's field nearby for the VH-60N to land in and they'll probably like Trump's particular brand of simple minded nonsense up there.
Yes, everybody who lives in the country is extremely stupid. Farmers especially.
This is very true. I live in the country and I'm as thick as two short planks.
I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.
(Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.
I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.
Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.
Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
Jacob wouldn’t naively answer any question he should deflect: he’d answer them truthfully and accurately in full knowledge of the consequences.
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
I think now if May went before Brexit is completed Mogg may run arguing it is his duty to ensure Brexit is delivered properly, there may even be enough hard-core Leaver Tory backbenchers to get him to the final two and if he does that he has an excellent chance of winning the membership vote and succeeding May as PM and Tory leader
Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.
Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
He could go to that pub in Sedgefield where Blair took Bush. There's a farmer's field nearby for the VH-60N to land in and they'll probably like Trump's particular brand of simple minded nonsense up there.
Yes, everybody who lives in the country is extremely stupid. Farmers especially.
This is very true. I live in the country and I'm as thick as two short planks.
Don't you try to out-moron me, sunshine. I live in Devon.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
Ruth Davidson would be the one to take on Labour but she's miles off becoming an MP and is a fierce remoaner.Longer term she has to be the Tories' best hope.In the here and now,Theresa is in the position of the cleft stick,the same position as the Tory party as a whole.I mean that they are in a difficult situation which will bring them problems and harm whatever they decide to do.The question for the Tory party remains one of harm management,a choice of the lesser of 2 evils which as Jerry Garcia helpfully reminds us ,both remain evil choices.There is no escape from the cleft stick.
I think May survives for now, with polls still almost neck and neck between the Tories and Labour there is no urgent political need for a change and it would be gross self indulgence as David Herdson says for the Tories to indulge in a leadership election which will cut down even more the limited timespan for the country to agree a Brexit deal with the EU
The Times is reporting that May has cancelled preparations for her planned Brexit speech because of cabinet splits. Where’s the leadership?
Whoever leads the Tories the Brexit position will likely be the same with a transition followed by leaving the single market and customs union and ending free movement and negotiating for a FTA.
Unless Mogg wins of course which is not impossible if he gets to the membership, then it would be full, hard Brexit with no transition period at all
There will be no hard Brexit - it is impossible to get Parliament to approve it even with JCM as PM.
I read an article this morning that commented that TM at 38% approval is by a distance ahead of anyone else in the conservative party and, unlike the political bubble, the public admire her for doing her best in an impossible position.
Some on here need to realise that the many are not into Brexit etc, it is just the few who between them seem to be making a horlicks of the most difficult issue facing the UK in decades
Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.
Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
He could go to that pub in Sedgefield where Blair took Bush. There's a farmer's field nearby for the VH-60N to land in and they'll probably like Trump's particular brand of simple minded nonsense up there.
Yes, everybody who lives in the country is extremely stupid. Farmers especially.
This is very true. I live in the country and I'm as thick as two short planks.
Don't you try to out-moron me, sunshine. I live in Devon.
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.
(Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.
I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.
Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.
Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
Jacob wouldn’t naively answer any question he should deflect: he’d answer them truthfully and accurately in full knowledge of the consequences.
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
I think now if May went before Brexit is completed Mogg may run arguing it is his duty to ensure Brexit is delivered properly, there may even be enough hard-core Leaver Tory backbenchers to get him to the final two and if he does that he has an excellent chance of winning the membership vote and succeeding May as PM and Tory leader
I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.
(Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.
I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.
Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.
Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
Jacob wouldn’t naively answer any question he should deflect: he’d answer them truthfully and accurately in full knowledge of the consequences.
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
Yes, you're right: I shouldn't have said naively. He does indeed know the consequences of his words.
That said, if he does run, while I think it unlikely that he'd win, it's not inconceivable. As I say, elections are inherently unpredictable.
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
Very much off topic, but I wonder if anyone here is following what's happening in Brazil at the moment. It looks very much like ex-president Lula won't be able to run for president in November 2018 (he'd almost certainly win, were he to be allowed to run). His passport's been seized and he's likely to end up in prison in 2-3 months' time. There are now huge divisions in the country, and there has to be some doubt about whether Brazil's democracy can survive these most recent events.
fwiw. I believe he's almost certainly guilty of the corruption charges he's facing. But his supporters (who are many) don't by and large accept that. And with rather more justification, they allege that the on-going 'Lavo Jato' investigation into corruption has been stacked against Lula's PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores). The charges of corruption against the current (unelected, but business-friendly) President Michel Temer were dropped some months' ago.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The terms are within packages offered by the EU. The three basic packages are a limited bilateral trade agreement (Canada), piggy backing the EU system on a take it or leave it basis (Norway) or full participation via membership. None of these packages is particularly appealing given the situation we are in, but we have to choose one or otherwise we are ejected to outer space (WTO), which is worse again. Once we have chosen a package it will be negotiated according to the EU rule book and timetable. Southam, I think, expects a version of Norway because it means minimum disruption while formally leaving the EU. The consequence is that we commit to doing what we are told going forward. I agree that outcome is likely, but it is by no means nailed on. Brexit could get very messy.
I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.
(Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.
I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.
Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.
Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
Jacob wouldn’t naively answer any question he should deflect: he’d answer them truthfully and accurately in full knowledge of the consequences.
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
I think now if May went before Brexit is completed Mogg may run arguing it is his duty to ensure Brexit is delivered properly, there may even be enough hard-core Leaver Tory backbenchers to get him to the final two and if he does that he has an excellent chance of winning the membership vote and succeeding May as PM and Tory leader
Given it's rumoured there are potentially 40 letters in Brady's possession this could all end much quicker than anybody expects...
It could but still think it is unlikely. However, if TM goes so does Brexit, she is the only one holding it together while the majority of the political class are desperate to stop it
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
Cummings is far cleverer than Timothy and Hill, but, also, much more rude and indiscreet.
I think Theresa has looked VERY out of sorts in Davos (I mean more than usual) - She really has looked like she's just going through the motions... I think she knows it's nearly all over for her.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
You clearly have little knowledge of what he did at education, dismissing ydoether's experience like that. Similarly at the primary level, he entirely abolished a reasonably functioning national system of assessment, and told schools to sort out a replacement from themselves. Schools are to this day still struggling to implement a replacement system. There are other examples.
Gove has a remarkable confidence in his ideas, and is not easily dissuaded that he is wrong. That can be a strength, but it can also be an enormous weakness.
What i have is experience of putting 2 kids through our atrocious education system. Being a teacher inside that system is not, for me, any recommendation of insight or authority.
When it comes to primary schools all I have heard for the last 2 decades is teachers screaming about how we should not have the State imposing centralised assessments or targets. It is a bit rich to them moan when they get their wishes.
Teaching used to be an honourable profession. I certainly don't regard it as such anymore.
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
Gove/Hunt ticket could be interesting.
Would it not be the other way around? For Hunt - a Leaver as chancellor would firm up his credentials. Gove seems to me to be too maverick for the top job.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
As much as the power in the negotiations are asymmetric, so too is the value in them.
1: The European Union values financial contributions more than it costs us to give them. 2: The United Kingdom values financial passporting more than it costs the European Union to give it to us. 3: (Related to 2) The European Union values the liquidity we offer to Eurozone companies and banks more than it costs us to give it to them. 4: We value ease of travel for holiday and they value having us spend our money on holidays in their nations.
A deal is available because even where one side doesn't necessarily want in an ideal world to concede on a point, they more strongly care about something else. We don't want to make ongoing contributions but won't die in a ditch to prevent it. They don't want to give financial services a free passport but won't die in a ditch to prevent it if we make it worth their while.
I think May survives for now, with polls still almost neck and neck between the Tories and Labour there is no urgent political need for a change and it would be gross self indulgence as David Herdson says for the Tories to indulge in a leadership election which will cut down even more the limited timespan for the country to agree a Brexit deal with the EU
The Times is reporting that May has cancelled preparations for her planned Brexit speech because of cabinet splits. Where’s the leadership?
Whoever leads the Tories the Brexit position will likely be the same with a transition followed by leaving the single market and customs union and ending free movement and negotiating for a FTA.
Unless Mogg wins of course which is not impossible if he gets to the membership, then it would be full, hard Brexit with no transition period at all
There will be no hard Brexit - it is impossible to get Parliament to approve it even with JCM as PM.
I read an article this morning that commented that TM at 38% approval is by a distance ahead of anyone else in the conservative party and, unlike the political bubble, the public admire her for doing her best in an impossible position.
Some on here need to realise that the many are not into Brexit etc, it is just the few who between them seem to be making a horlicks of the most difficult issue facing the UK in decades
If we cannot agree a transition by March 2019 and no FTA agreed by then either it will be hard Brexit whatever a majority at Westminster think
I think Theresa has looked VERY out of sorts in Davos (I mean more than usual) - She really has looked like she's just going through the motions... I think she knows it's nearly all over for her.
Boris can smell the end now, like blood in the water.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The terms are within packages offered by the EU. The three basic packages are a limited bilateral trade agreement (Canada), piggy backing the EU system on a take it or leave it basis (Norway) or full participation via membership. None of these packages is particularly appealing given the situation we are in, but we have to choose one or otherwise we are ejected to outer space (WTO), which is worse again. Once we have chosen a package it will be negotiated according to the EU rule book and timetable. Southam, I think, expects a version of Norway because it means minimum disruption while formally leaving the EU. The consequence is that we commit to doing what we are told going forward. I agree that outcome is likely, but it is by no means nailed on. Brexit could get very messy.
Macron, the Italian PM and the Swedes are happy to include financial services.
I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.
(Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.
I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.
Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.
Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
Jacob wouldn’t naively answer any question he should deflect: he’d answer them truthfully and accurately in full knowledge of the consequences.
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
I think now if May went before Brexit is completed Mogg may run arguing it is his duty to ensure Brexit is delivered properly, there may even be enough hard-core Leaver Tory backbenchers to get him to the final two and if he does that he has an excellent chance of winning the membership vote and succeeding May as PM and Tory leader
You don’t know him do you?
Oh sorry forgot your personal knowledge of every senior Tory and what they are thinking at all times!
Given it's rumoured there are potentially 40 letters in Brady's possession this could all end much quicker than anybody expects...
It could but still think it is unlikely. However, if TM goes so does Brexit, she is the only one holding it together while the majority of the political class are desperate to stop it
The civil service are trying to keep us bound up in years and years of "transition" (first A50 was to be the transitional period, then we'd have an extra year, then an extra two years, now they are looking at three years "transition" etc.)
Brexit is dead with Theresa May. Brexit is probably dead without Theresa May but one final roll of the dice by the Brexiteers might save it.
As I said yesterday, I think May's 38% rating as doing a good job when virually nobody in frontline politics would privately agree is actually quite impressive. David's reasons why she isn't are, as he says, mostly related to whether she's a good party leader, and the public cares little about that. They see someone of perhaps limited ability doing her best in a difficult situation without any obvious catastrophes. They don't especially see why she should be replaced.
But that will apply even more after Brexit. I can well see the public feeling OK, she's done the best of a bad job, well done, and getting up to say 45% approval rating. A leadership challenge at that point will look grossly unfair and driven by personal ambition rather than the good of the country. So if there isn't a challenge now, we should see a real possibility that she'll be leader at the next GE.
Indeed.
I've never heard any criticism of May in the 'real world' whereas there was plenty for Cameron, Blair and especially Brown.
Nor has there been a shift in the opinion polls - I expected Carillion to have an effect but it doesn't seem to be doing. While other issues which got politicians and media excited - Grenfell and the Iranian woman for example - are 'long forgotten'.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
Indeed there's a risk of nuclear war in Korea but is that seriously more risky than the Cuban Missile Crisis and virtually any other point in the Cold War?
Seven minutes to midnight was good enough for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
I think May survives for now, with polls still almost neck and neck between the Tories and Labour there is no urgent political need for a change and it would be gross self indulgence as David Herdson says for the Tories to indulge in a leadership election which will cut down even more the limited timespan for the country to agree a Brexit deal with the EU
The Times is reporting that May has cancelled preparations for her planned Brexit speech because of cabinet splits. Where’s the leadership?
Whoever leads the Tories the Brexit position will likely be the same with a transition followed by leaving the single market and customs union and ending free movement and negotiating for a FTA.
Unless Mogg wins of course which is not impossible if he gets to the membership, then it would be full, hard Brexit with no transition period at all
There will be no hard Brexit - it is impossible to get Parliament to approve it even with JCM as PM.
I read an article this morning that commented that TM at 38% approval is by a distance ahead of anyone else in the conservative party and, unlike the political bubble, the public admire her for doing her best in an impossible position.
Some on here need to realise that the many are not into Brexit etc, it is just the few who between them seem to be making a horlicks of the most difficult issue facing the UK in decades
If we cannot agree a transition by March 2019 and no FTA agreed by then either it will be hard Brexit whatever a majority at Westminster think
Which means that defenestrating the PM at a key moment to prevent any agreement being struck is a card that hard Brexiteers might want to keep in their pocket for later in the year.
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
Cummings is far cleverer than Timothy and Hill, but, also, much more rude and indiscreet.
Not necessarily a bad combination for a behind the scenes "fixer".
I think May survives for now, with polls still almost neck and neck between the Tories and Labour there is no urgent political need for a change and it would be gross self indulgence as David Herdson says for the Tories to indulge in a leadership election which will cut down even more the limited timespan for the country to agree a Brexit deal with the EU
The Times is reporting that May has cancelled preparations for her planned Brexit speech because of cabinet splits. Where’s the leadership?
Whoever leads the Tories the Brexit position will likely be the same with a transition followed by leaving the single market and customs union and ending free movement and negotiating for a FTA.
Unless Mogg wins of course which is not impossible if he gets to the membership, then it would be full, hard Brexit with no transition period at all
There will be no hard Brexit - it is impossible to get Parliament to approve it even with JCM as PM.
I read an article this morning that commented that TM at 38% approval is by a distance ahead of anyone else in the conservative party and, unlike the political bubble, the public admire her for doing her best in an impossible position.
Some on here need to realise that the many are not into Brexit etc, it is just the few who between them seem to be making a horlicks of the most difficult issue facing the UK in decades
If we cannot agree a transition by March 2019 and no FTA agreed by then either it will be hard Brexit whatever a majority at Westminster think
There will be no hard Brexit - electoral suicide for the party responsible for it
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
As much as the power in the negotiations are asymmetric, so too is the value in them.
1: The European Union values financial contributions more than it costs us to give them. 2: The United Kingdom values financial passporting more than it costs the European Union to give it to us. 3: (Related to 2) The European Union values the liquidity we offer to Eurozone companies and banks more than it costs us to give it to them. 4: We value ease of travel for holiday and they value having us spend our money on holidays in their nations.
A deal is available because even where one side doesn't necessarily want in an ideal world to concede on a point, they more strongly care about something else. We don't want to make ongoing contributions but won't die in a ditch to prevent it. They don't want to give financial services a free passport but won't die in a ditch to prevent it if we make it worth their while.
Yes, indeed, it's mutual self-interest. And I don't think a 60/40 EU/UK actual balance is any worse than a 27 to 1 voting "balance" within the European Council, or the Commission.
There will be advantages and disadvantages either way, of course, but neither is a slam dunk.
Given it's rumoured there are potentially 40 letters in Brady's possession this could all end much quicker than anybody expects...
It could but still think it is unlikely. However, if TM goes so does Brexit, she is the only one holding it together while the majority of the political class are desperate to stop it
The civil service are trying to keep us bound up in years and years of "transition" (first A50 was to be the transitional period, then we'd have an extra year, then an extra two years, now they are looking at three years "transition" etc.)
Brexit is dead with Theresa May. Brexit is probably dead without Theresa May but one final roll of the dice by the Brexiteers might save it.
That's my take anyway.
Ironically the Brexiteers are the biggest threat to Brexit
The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
I have to say, I agree with that. I'm also sceptical about his working relationship with Dominic Cummings, who is, frankly worse than Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy added together and squared - before we even get into his ideas about reforming government.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
Gove/Hunt ticket could be interesting.
Would it not be the other way around? For Hunt - a Leaver as chancellor would firm up his credentials. Gove seems to me to be too maverick for the top job.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
Today's report that the government is now angling for three years of "transition" (taking it beyond the 2022 election) could well the the final straw that gets it to 48 signatures.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
But why now? What's driving it? The polls aren't that bad. Is it just the traditional tory bloodsport of treachery or are they worried that's she's trying to deliver three different versions of Brexit simultaneously and will end up with none of them?
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
Today's report that the government is now angling for three years of transition (taking it beyond the 2022 election) could well the the final straw that get's it to 48 signatures.
How does a three year transition take us past the 2022 election?
We leave on 29 March 2019, making the transition end if three years long on 29 March 2022, if not 31 December 2021 (the EU's current interpretation of 2 years is 31 December 2020).
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
But why now? What's driving it? The polls aren't that bad. Is it just the traditional tory bloodsport of treachery or are they worried that's she's trying to deliver three different versions of Brexit simultaneously and will end up with none of them?
She's weak and impotent. Not good qualities in a leader.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
Today's report that the government is now angling for three years of transition (taking it beyond the 2022 election) could well the the final straw that get's it to 48 signatures.
How does a three year transition take us past the 2022 election?
We leave on 29 March 2019, making the transition end if three years long on 29 March 2022, if not 31 December 2021 (the EU's current interpretation of 2 years is 31 December 2020).
The 2022 election is due on 5 May 2022.
Getting too close for comfort though.
Two years of "transition" beyond 2019 should be the maximum.
I still can't believe the Tories are stupid enough to entertain the idea of Jeremy Hunt as leader. Not only does he come across as vaguely smug, he can be personally connected to all the problems in the NHS, which is by far the biggest liability for them as a party.
The Tories really need to have a sense of renewal at the next election, so they should have someone of the next generation. Rory Stewart, Dominic Raab etc. But even if they do that, they should get someone who won't stir up fresh animus. That means no Boris, no Hunt, no Mogg.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
Today's report that the government is now angling for three years of transition (taking it beyond the 2022 election) could well the the final straw that get's it to 48 signatures.
How does a three year transition take us past the 2022 election?
We leave on 29 March 2019, making the transition end if three years long on 29 March 2022, if not 31 December 2021 (the EU's current interpretation of 2 years is 31 December 2020).
The 2022 election is due on 5 May 2022.
Getting too close for comfort though.
Two years of "transition" beyond 2019 should be the maximum.
It is getting too close for comfort but it equally needs to be long enough to seal the final deal.
Frankly I would have thought 2 years would be cutting it too close for comfort for the latter, however given the EU want to work on that timescale that ought to give us confidence that a deal can be signed in that timescale. Which makes me wonder why we'd want longer.
I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.
(Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.
I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.
Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.
Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
Jacob wouldn’t naively answer any question he should deflect: he’d answer them truthfully and accurately in full knowledge of the consequences.
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
I think now if May went before Brexit is completed Mogg may run arguing it is his duty to ensure Brexit is delivered properly, there may even be enough hard-core Leaver Tory backbenchers to get him to the final two and if he does that he has an excellent chance of winning the membership vote and succeeding May as PM and Tory leader
You don’t know him do you?
Oh sorry forgot your personal knowledge of every senior Tory and what they are thinking at all times!
Not everyone. But Somerset is my family’s stomping ground.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
But why now? What's driving it? The polls aren't that bad. Is it just the traditional tory bloodsport of treachery or are they worried that's she's trying to deliver three different versions of Brexit simultaneously and will end up with none of them?
Politicians are by nature unable to control their urge to meddle. The longer the non-meddling goes on, the more the urge niggles.
May isn't popular, but I think anyone who deposes her at this point will go down like the proverbial receptacle of vomit. Be they Leave or Remain, the majority of the public want the Government to focus on getting the best possible deal for the UK, rather than exploiting any opportunities for personal career advancement. And they've definitely seen through Boris.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
Indeed there's a risk of nuclear war in Korea but is that seriously more risky than the Cuban Missile Crisis and virtually any other point in the Cold War?
Seven minutes to midnight was good enough for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Remember they believe that Trump is A Bad Thing and that colours their analysis
I still can't believe the Tories are stupid enough to entertain the idea of Jeremy Hunt as leader. Not only does he come across as vaguely smug, he can be personally connected to all the problems in the NHS, which is by far the biggest liability for them as a party.
The Tories really need to have a sense of renewal at the next election, so they should have someone of the next generation. Rory Stewart, Dominic Raab etc. But even if they do that, they should get someone who won't stir up fresh animus. That means no Boris, no Hunt, no Mogg.
He's also the person best placed to turn that liability into a strength. The NHS is going to be an issue for the Tories at the next election no matter what but nobody in the Party that I can think of knows the NHS better than he does. He can speak with an authority on the subject more than anyone else.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
Indeed there's a risk of nuclear war in Korea but is that seriously more risky than the Cuban Missile Crisis and virtually any other point in the Cold War?
Seven minutes to midnight was good enough for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Remember they believe that Trump is A Bad Thing and that colours their analysis
Trump may be A Bad Thing but the Cold War was worse. It makes them look silly to suggest this is the equally most dangerous moment in the entire history of the world.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at my pre-referendum posts you’ll see things are panning out almost exactly as I expected. I was not one of those predicting the economy would crash. My concern was lower business investment, less money for public spending and a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
That Kim's been deid for more than 20 years, so not sure how much harm he could do, nukes or not.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
But why now? What's driving it? The polls aren't that bad. Is it just the traditional tory bloodsport of treachery or are they worried that's she's trying to deliver three different versions of Brexit simultaneously and will end up with none of them?
I think Iain Martin was right.
MPs thought there was a deal May would leave quietly in summer 19.
The reshuffle was viewed as trying to tilt the pitch in favour of her choice (Williamson) or possibly a belief she can go on and on rather than to stick to the deal.
Hence the debate whether she needs to go now if she won’t go in 2019.
That’s what the 60 MP meeting was about and that’s why there is so much noise.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
That Kim's been deid for more than 20 years, so not sure how much harm he could do, nukes or not.
I do get my Kim’s muddled up. Korean politics doesn’t interest me.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at my pre-referendum posts you’ll see things are panning out almost exactly as I expected. I was not one of those predicting the economy would crash. My concern was lower business investment, less money for public spending and a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Has it happened?
I thought the tax revenues were actually beating forecasts [for a change] so how is that less money?
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
That Kim's been deid for more than 20 years, so not sure how much harm he could do, nukes or not.
I do get my Kim’s muddled up. Korean politics doesn’t interest me.
Could be worse. One US ambassador greeted 'Kim Jong the Second'.
Edit - and Kim Il Sung is still officially the President of North Korea despite being dead for 24 years so in theory you were correct anyway.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
The EU is dictating the framework and the parameters of the final deal - Canada or Norway - once we have made that choice, there will be a degree of negotiation around the finer detail. The EU is also telling us how the transition will work. It’s no great surprise.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
That Kim's been deid for more than 20 years, so not sure how much harm he could do, nukes or not.
I do get my Kim’s muddled up. Korean politics doesn’t interest me.
I'm disappointed that you of all people aren't more fastidious over dynastic exactitude.
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
It’s also based on the fact that he is risking nuclear war in Korea.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
That Kim's been deid for more than 20 years, so not sure how much harm he could do, nukes or not.
I do get my Kim’s muddled up. Korean politics doesn’t interest me.
Could be worse. One US ambassador greeted 'Kim Jong the Second'.
It always amuses me they had to rebrand “the madness of George III” for the US market
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at my pre-referendum posts you’ll see things are panning out almost exactly as I expected. I was not one of those predicting the economy would crash. My concern was lower business investment, less money for public spending and a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Has it happened?
I thought the tax revenues were actually beating forecasts [for a change] so how is that less money?
Our growth rate is lower than it otherwise would have been. That means less income for the government.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at my pre-referendum posts you’ll see things are panning out almost exactly as I expected. I was not one of those predicting the economy would crash. My concern was lower business investment, less money for public spending and a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Its amazing, nobody now seems to have predicted a recession after a Leave vote.
Business investment and public spending have increased so that leaves you with meaningless drivel about 'soft power'.
You also said we should offer £60bn to leave the EU and doubtless would have willingly paid double once Brussels asked for it.
Nor do I doubt that you were also a ra-ra boy for when Blair gave away tens of billions of the Rebate for nothing in return.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
But why now? What's driving it? The polls aren't that bad. Is it just the traditional tory bloodsport of treachery or are they worried that's she's trying to deliver three different versions of Brexit simultaneously and will end up with none of them?
It’s pretty clear the Tory Brexit loons have woken up to where things are heading in terms of our future relationship with the EU. If they leave things much longer everything will be done and dusted, and the clean break they crave will not happen.
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
But why now? What's driving it? The polls aren't that bad. Is it just the traditional tory bloodsport of treachery or are they worried that's she's trying to deliver three different versions of Brexit simultaneously and will end up with none of them?
I think Iain Martin was right.
MPs thought there was a deal May would leave quietly in summer 19.
The reshuffle was viewed as trying to tilt the pitch in favour of her choice (Williamson) or possibly a belief she can go on and on rather than to stick to the deal.
Hence the debate whether she needs to go now if she won’t go in 2019.
That’s what the 60 MP meeting was about and that’s why there is so much noise.
But why would she want to go on ?
She doesn't seem to enjoy the job, she's getting old and has health issues, she will have her place in history.
And can she really be that bothered about someone like Gavin Williamson ???
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
Yes, something like 10.25 is more like it. Or 10.26 to reflect the fact that Trump is obsessed with the size of his button.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at my pre-referendum posts you’ll see things are panning out almost exactly as I expected. I was not one of those predicting the economy would crash. My concern was lower business investment, less money for public spending and a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Has it happened?
I thought the tax revenues were actually beating forecasts [for a change] so how is that less money?
Our growth rate is lower than it otherwise would have been. That means less income for the government.
And what's your evidence for that ?
The only thing we know for a fact is that the economy has done a lot better than it was predicted to do by the 'experts'.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn'tU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look ata significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Its amazing, nobody now seems to have predicted a recession after a Leave vote.
Business investment and public spending have increased so that leaves you with meaningless drivel about 'soft power'.
You also said we should offer £60bn to leave the EU and doubtless would have willingly paid double once Brussels asked for it.
Nor do I doubt that you were also a ra-ra boy for when Blair gave away tens of billions of the Rebate for nothing in return.
Yep, I’d have paid the £60 billion straight off the bat, no doubt about it at all. The stability and goodwill that would have created would have led to higher growth levels, more investment, etc. And we’d be much further on in the negotiations. If Brussels had then upped the demand, it would have given the UK a great opportunity to refuse while creating significant problems for many governments of individual member states. But then my priority would always been getting the best deal for the UK, not the most flattering headlines in the Daily Mail.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
You mean how we've fallen from Number 2 to Number 2 in the SoftPower 30 index?
I think its about 50 /50 they will get the 48 signatures this week. She just can't do it - read the Tim Shipman book which illustrates this very well. Probably lemmings rushing to a cliff, but I think the ingredients are in place
But why now? What's driving it? The polls aren't that bad. Is it just the traditional tory bloodsport of treachery or are they worried that's she's trying to deliver three different versions of Brexit simultaneously and will end up with none of them?
I think Iain Martin was right.
MPs thought there was a deal May would leave quietly in summer 19.
The reshuffle was viewed as trying to tilt the pitch in favour of her choice (Williamson) or possibly a belief she can go on and on rather than to stick to the deal.
Hence the debate whether she needs to go now if she won’t go in 2019.
That’s what the 60 MP meeting was about and that’s why there is so much noise.
But why would she want to go on ?
She doesn't seem to enjoy the job, she's getting old and has health issues, she will have her place in history.
And can she really be that bothered about someone like Gavin Williamson ???
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
Yes, something like 10.25 is more like it. Or 10.26 to reflect the fact that Trump is obsessed with the size of his button.
Oo-er, missus!
But at least we know it doesn't resemble the size of his hands
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at myignificant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Has it happened?
I thought the tax revenues were actually beating forecasts [for a change] so how is that less money?
Our growth rate is lower than it otherwise would have been. That means less income for the government.
And what's your evidence for that ?
The only thing we know for a fact is that the economy has done a lot better than it was predicted to do by the 'experts'.
Not all experts. But if you wish to believe there has been no Brexit effect on growth, so be it.
The truth is that none of the parties have a proper leader: this is the tragedy we live in. What the article says is true, but Labour also does not have a leader. Most of his own MPs do not support him, he is unelectable to government, and if Labour had the Tory system of ridding itself of useless leaders, he would have been long gone. Labour has locked itself into leaderlessness.
The Tories need to get rid of May, but not yet. She might win a vote of confidence if the issue is forced -indeed given the mood among MPs and sheer common sense, this is the likely outcome of a move against her. But she should go by 2020/1 and her successor should be younger and not one of the aging beasts. And above all it should not be a blonde buffoon who bears an uncanny resemblance to Donald Trump.....
Is it Brady's job to be acting as Theresa's minder? Had he tried to influence backbench opinion to help, say, David Cameron, I imagine there'd be screams for his head.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
You mean how we've fallen from Number 2 to Number 2 in the SoftPower 30 index?
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at my pre-referendum posts you’ll see things are panning out almost exactly as I expected. I was not one of those predicting the economy would crash. My concern was lower business investment, less money for public spending and a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Has it happened?
I thought the tax revenues were actually beating forecasts [for a change] so how is that less money?
Our growth rate is lower than it otherwise would have been. That means less income for the government.
And what's your evidence for that ?
The only thing we know for a fact is that the economy has done a lot better than it was predicted to do by the 'experts'.
As have most economies, and more so. The US, and most particularly the Eurozone.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
If you look at my pre-referendum posts you’ll see things are panning out almost exactly as I expected. I was not one of those predicting the economy would crash. My concern was lower business investment, less money for public spending and a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Has it happened?
I thought the tax revenues were actually beating forecasts [for a change] so how is that less money?
Our growth rate is lower than it otherwise would have been. That means less income for the government.
That can't be known for certain. Our growth rate has actually exceeded the "experts" forecasts. Typically more often than not our growth rate has come in below the "experts" forecasts.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
You mean how we've fallen from Number 2 to Number 2 in the SoftPower 30 index?
I didn't find the overall thrust of that article terribly convincing, a bod yn onest. While it may hold true for London where I don't think anyone has denied property speculation is a problem, it remains rather strange that house prices in Cannock are still at least four times average salary, and that new builds are snapped up usually within 3-4 days of going on the market (even in the time I've been here there have been five new full estates put up, and they all sold at rocket speed). That to my mind suggests shortage, not property speculation.
Of course it may be as simple as the author lives in London and simply extrapolated London to the rest of the country.
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
Southam's increasingly aggrieved that things aren't going badly enough.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
a significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
You mean how we've fallen from Number 2 to Number 2 in the SoftPower 30 index?
That says nothing about the power of the UK and everything about the power of Theresa May.
If you were a global titan would you want to be sat listening to Theresa May drone on about internet security? Our own nation can't stand her, her own party can't stand her, why should anyone else?
We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
As in any negotiation the terms are “set” by the other side in that they have to agree to them.
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
The idea the EU isn't making any concessions to the UK is a nonsense.
It knows, if it doesn'tU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
If you look ata significant diminution of the UK’s soft power. All of which has happened.
Its amazing, nobody now seems to have predicted a recession after a Leave vote.
Business investment and public spending have increased so that leaves you with meaningless drivel about 'soft power'.
You also said we should offer £60bn to leave the EU and doubtless would have willingly paid double once Brussels asked for it.
Nor do I doubt that you were also a ra-ra boy for when Blair gave away tens of billions of the Rebate for nothing in return.
Yep, I’d have paid the £60 billion straight off the bat, no doubt about it at all. The stability and goodwill that would have created would have led to higher growth levels, more investment, etc. And we’d be much further on in the negotiations. If Brussels had then upped the demand, it would have given the UK a great opportunity to refuse while creating significant problems for many governments of individual member states. But then my priority would always been getting the best deal for the UK, not the most flattering headlines in the Daily Mail.
Goodwill means nothing when dealing with the EU. This isn't like dealing with a houseseller, or even a person at all: the EU is such a labyrinthine network of relationships and interest groups that a human concept like 'goodwill' means nothing to it. cf Blair's rebate giveaway in exchange for what - as was widely predicted at the time - amounted to absolutely bugger all.
The truth is that none of the parties have a proper leader: this is the tragedy we live in. What the article says is true, but Labour also does not have a leader. Most of his own MPs do not support him, he is unelectable to government, and if Labour had the Tory system of ridding itself of useless leaders, he would have been long gone. Labour has locked itself into leaderlessness.
The Tories need to get rid of May, but not yet. She might win a vote of confidence if the issue is forced -indeed given the mood among MPs and sheer common sense, this is the likely outcome of a move against her. But she should go by 2020/1 and her successor should be younger and not one of the aging beasts. And above all it should not be a blonde buffoon who bears an uncanny resemblance to Donald Trump.....
Comments
https://twitter.com/AndrewSNicoll/status/957208462705995776
Unless Mogg wins of course which is not impossible if he gets to the membership, then it would be full, hard Brexit with no transition period at all
He knows he’s not going to be leader (and probably won’t run) - he’s just standing up for what he believes in.
Similarly at the primary level, he entirely abolished a reasonably functioning national system of assessment, and told schools to sort out a replacement from themselves. Schools are to this day still struggling to implement a replacement system.
There are other examples.
Gove has a remarkable confidence in his ideas, and is not easily dissuaded that he is wrong. That can be a strength, but it can also be an enormous weakness.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/957198254575357953
But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out
Just read that the Doomsday Clock for this year is "two minutes to midnight", the same as it was in 1953 at the very height of the Cold War tensions and actually closer to midnight than during most of the Cold War.
That seems absolutely utterly ridiculous to me. Sure there are tensions at the moment but to suggest we're as close now to armageddon as we ever were during the Cold War, closer than most of it, is just silly.
It's a Doomsday equivalent of inflation.
That said, Gove might well make a very good number two though in something like the Osborne role, if there was someone to take up Cameron's.
I read an article this morning that commented that TM at 38% approval is by a distance ahead of anyone else in the conservative party and, unlike the political bubble, the public admire her for doing her best in an impossible position.
Some on here need to realise that the many are not into Brexit etc, it is just the few who between them seem to be making a horlicks of the most difficult issue facing the UK in decades
That said, if he does run, while I think it unlikely that he'd win, it's not inconceivable. As I say, elections are inherently unpredictable.
It knows, if it doesn't, the deal won't pass and they'll lose financial contributions, military and security cooperation, the liquidity the City provides to the Eurozone, ease of travel for money-spending British tourists, and significant purchases of EU manufactured goods.
I'd say the negotiations are about 60-40 or, at worst, 65-35, in their favour, but not 100-0.
fwiw. I believe he's almost certainly guilty of the corruption charges he's facing. But his supporters (who are many) don't by and large accept that. And with rather more justification, they allege that the on-going 'Lavo Jato' investigation into corruption has been stacked against Lula's PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores). The charges of corruption against the current (unelected, but business-friendly) President Michel Temer were dropped some months' ago.
Arguably doing nothing and letting a certifiable nutter* get his hands on a nuke is riskier than Trump’s strategy
* for the avoidance of doubt I mean Kim Il-Sung!!
When it comes to primary schools all I have heard for the last 2 decades is teachers screaming about how we should not have the State imposing centralised assessments or targets. It is a bit rich to them moan when they get their wishes.
Teaching used to be an honourable profession. I certainly don't regard it as such anymore.
https://www.politico.eu/article/laura-huhtasaari-president-election-finland-marine-le-pen/
1: The European Union values financial contributions more than it costs us to give them.
2: The United Kingdom values financial passporting more than it costs the European Union to give it to us.
3: (Related to 2) The European Union values the liquidity we offer to Eurozone companies and banks more than it costs us to give it to them.
4: We value ease of travel for holiday and they value having us spend our money on holidays in their nations.
A deal is available because even where one side doesn't necessarily want in an ideal world to concede on a point, they more strongly care about something else. We don't want to make ongoing contributions but won't die in a ditch to prevent it. They don't want to give financial services a free passport but won't die in a ditch to prevent it if we make it worth their while.
Every treaty is bespoke
Brexit is dead with Theresa May. Brexit is probably dead without Theresa May but one final roll of the dice by the Brexiteers might save it.
That's my take anyway.
I've never heard any criticism of May in the 'real world' whereas there was plenty for Cameron, Blair and especially Brown.
Nor has there been a shift in the opinion polls - I expected Carillion to have an effect but it doesn't seem to be doing. While other issues which got politicians and media excited - Grenfell and the Iranian woman for example - are 'long forgotten'.
Seven minutes to midnight was good enough for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There will be advantages and disadvantages either way, of course, but neither is a slam dunk.
We leave on 29 March 2019, making the transition end if three years long on 29 March 2022, if not 31 December 2021 (the EU's current interpretation of 2 years is 31 December 2020).
The 2022 election is due on 5 May 2022.
Two years of "transition" beyond 2019 should be the maximum.
The Tories really need to have a sense of renewal at the next election, so they should have someone of the next generation. Rory Stewart, Dominic Raab etc. But even if they do that, they should get someone who won't stir up fresh animus. That means no Boris, no Hunt, no Mogg.
Frankly I would have thought 2 years would be cutting it too close for comfort for the latter, however given the EU want to work on that timescale that ought to give us confidence that a deal can be signed in that timescale. Which makes me wonder why we'd want longer.
Lets think for a monent on what the EU expected to have happened by now.
The car factories would have closed down, the City would have relocated to Frankfurt, the UK would be in recession with stock and housing markets in freefall.
And Brussels would be dictating terms on the UK's continued membership of the EU together with EverCloserUnion.
After all why wouldn't Brussels believe that - it believed in its own importance and the alphabet's soup on international organisations and their 'experts' said likewise.
Events must be a real shock to Brussels.
MPs thought there was a deal May would leave quietly in summer 19.
The reshuffle was viewed as trying to tilt the pitch in favour of her choice (Williamson) or possibly a belief she can go on and on rather than to stick to the deal.
Hence the debate whether she needs to go now if she won’t go in 2019.
That’s what the 60 MP meeting was about and that’s why there is so much noise.
You have no idea how much I wish you were right.
Sadly, you are not.
I thought the tax revenues were actually beating forecasts [for a change] so how is that less money?
Edit - and Kim Il Sung is still officially the President of North Korea despite being dead for 24 years so in theory you were correct anyway.
Business investment and public spending have increased so that leaves you with meaningless drivel about 'soft power'.
You also said we should offer £60bn to leave the EU and doubtless would have willingly paid double once Brussels asked for it.
Nor do I doubt that you were also a ra-ra boy for when Blair gave away tens of billions of the Rebate for nothing in return.
She doesn't seem to enjoy the job, she's getting old and has health issues, she will have her place in history.
And can she really be that bothered about someone like Gavin Williamson ???
The only thing we know for a fact is that the economy has done a lot better than it was predicted to do by the 'experts'.
But at least we know it doesn't resemble the size of his hands
It’s speculation in the property market that is fuelling stratospheric house price rises, not shortage of supply
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/building-homes-britain-housing-crisis
What the article says is true, but Labour also does not have a leader. Most of his own MPs do not support him, he is unelectable to government, and if Labour had the Tory system of ridding itself of useless leaders, he would have been long gone. Labour has locked itself into leaderlessness.
The Tories need to get rid of May, but not yet. She might win a vote of confidence if the issue is forced -indeed given the mood among MPs and sheer common sense, this is the likely outcome of a move against her. But she should go by 2020/1 and her successor should be younger and not one of the aging beasts. And above all it should not be a blonde buffoon who bears an uncanny resemblance to Donald Trump.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/theresa-may-brexit-davos.html
Of course it may be as simple as the author lives in London and simply extrapolated London to the rest of the country.
If you were a global titan would you want to be sat listening to Theresa May drone on about internet security? Our own nation can't stand her, her own party can't stand her, why should anyone else?