Hardline Eurosceptics, however, are unnerved by Barnier’s bullishness and privately warning May that she needs to back them, not those advocating a soft Brexit. “It’s allowing the EU to unleash hell on us,” one MP claimed.
Their mood was not brightened by a meeting between Brexiteers, led by former minister David Jones and the Tory chief whip, Julian Smith, last week. Smith pointed out they have already had much of what they want and should brace “to be disappointed” in future....
....The standard bearer of the hardliners, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has privately told colleagues he would be a lot more relaxed “if we knew what we were transitioning to”. In extremis, this mistrust manifests itself in threats to oust May by submitting letters to the backbench 1922 committee demanding a vote of no confidence. “We’ve made our position clear to the prime minister,” said one Eurosceptic. “If she lets us down, the letters will go in.”
The suspicion felt by the group, cruelly dubbed “Mogglodytes” by opponents, extends even to Brexit-backing cabinet ministers. In Thursday’s meeting it appeared as if Michael Gove, the environment secretary, and others were prepared to remain in regulatory alignment into the future on cars, aviation and chemicals. “They’re heading for alignment on industrial goods,” a source familiar with the discussions confirmed.
the ERG could bring May down tomorrow if they wanted to. Why won't they? Because they know in their heart of hearts that Brexit is undeliverable in the form they claim they want? Cold reality is less congenial than warm grievance.
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill. Why would they want minus when they could get services, a British strength, included with Norway? I guess that's the price for some control over FoM.
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Provided May does not try and keep the UK in the Customs Union, even in part, as Robbins earlier suggested and No 10 denied, she should avoid any no confidence vote until Brexit negotiations are completed especially as the local elections will likely avoid major losses of Tory councils and councillors given the Tories were behind Labour last time the seats were up in 2014 anyway and the current neck and neck polls. I also think it unlikely Rees Mogg would succeed May in Downing Street, leader of the opposition is more likely to be what Mogg is aiming for if Corbyn becomes PM after the next general election
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
If politicians who lie, obfuscate, mislead or are a tad delicate with the actuality had no future in politics then the House of Commons would be empty.
There’s no need to be that restrictive. Just excluding liars would exclude Penny Mordaunt.
Find me a politician who hasn't lied and I'll show you a liar.
Conservative politicians do not lie. They are merely 'economic with the actualitire'.
If the Conservatives want a poster child for Leaver dishonesty at exactly the moment that Brexit strikes and the public is judging whether the promises of the campaign were being met, they can go ahead. It doesn’t seem likely to be a happy choice though.
I think you underestimate the level of dishonesty discounting that the voting public allow for.
Blair shrugged off the Iraq debacle in 2005 because the electorate determined he was the least worst option and considered that a politician misleading the public on a matter of war was trumped by other factors.
If Brexit looks unappetising, the public will gladly conclude that they were lied to rather than admit they were wrong. Appointing Penny Mordaunt as leader would make that very easy for them to do so.
The Iraq war was essentially peripheral to voters’ concerns. Brexit is going to underpin every aspect of government policy for years to come. At present the Conservatives are being driven by dogma and actively hostile to evidence-based policy-making. They cannot afford for large parts of the public to blame them for a dishonest Brexit. They have nothing else to offer.
Lastly, Tony Blair got 35% of the vote in 2005. If the Conservatives get the same in 2022, they will almost certainly be facing a hammering.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Morning Mordaunt-watchers and cock-fanciers of PB.
It appears the ERG have May by the balls. Hardest Brexit, or we depose you.
It’s telling though that no-one knows - including Rees-Mogg - what our end-state with Europe is to be. May is edging backwards into Brexit, trying to follow the path of least resistance. And so far, she’s got away with it. It’s an astonishing achievement. A kind of anti-leadership. An example of the inverse fuhrerprinzip. Merkelling, if you like.
With his Catholic views he must think every monarch after James II / VII is a Protestant usurper and it is time to install the Jacobites back on to the throne, which he will do when he becomes PM.
Indeed not.
Liegeance Jacobites consider that following the death of Henry IX in 1807 the crown lawfully passed to George I (George III in the Hanovarian line) and by descent to Elizabeth II.
If the Conservatives want a poster child for Leaver dishonesty at exactly the moment that Brexit strikes and the public is judging whether the promises of the campaign were being met, they can go ahead. It doesn’t seem likely to be a happy choice though.
I think you underestimate the level of dishonesty discounting that the voting public allow for.
Blair shrugged off the Iraq debacle in 2005 because the electorate determined he was the least worst option and considered that a politician misleading the public on a matter of war was trumped by other factors.
If Brexit looks unappetising, the public will gladly conclude that they were lied to rather than admit they were wrong. Appointing Penny Mordaunt as leader would make that very easy for them to do so.
The Iraq war was essentially peripheral to voters’ concerns. Brexit is going to underpin every aspect of government policy for years to come. At present the Conservatives are being driven by dogma and actively hostile to evidence-based policy-making. They cannot afford for large parts of the public to blame them for a dishonest Brexit. They have nothing else to offer.
Lastly, Tony Blair got 35% of the vote in 2005. If the Conservatives get the same in 2022, they will almost certainly be facing a hammering.
Blair only got 35% as the LDs got 22% on an anti Iraq War ticket, they are nowhere near that now on their current anti Brexit ticket
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Exactly , you just need to watch the customs programmes on TV, every American driving over the border is checked and many pulled out and their vehicles and luggage dismantled. it would mean need for jungle camps in Calais any more though so good for France.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Didn’t a previous thread show that the Lib Dems’ targets are almost exclusively Tory seats?
"The correct response won’t be found in attacking the concept of universal healthcare, as Donald Trump bizarrely tried to in his recent Twitter rant, but nor is it to kick the problem into the long grass of some Royal Commission-style process."
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Didn’t a previous thread show that the Lib Dems’ targets are almost exclusively Tory seats?
Hardline Eurosceptics, however, are unnerved by Barnier’s bullishness and privately warning May that she needs to back them, not those advocating a soft Brexit. “It’s allowing the EU to unleash hell on us,” one MP claimed.
Their mood was not brightened by a meeting between Brexiteers, led by former minister David Jones and the Tory chief whip, Julian Smith, last week. Smith pointed out they have already had much of what they want and should brace “to be disappointed” in future....
....The standard bearer of the hardliners, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has privately told colleagues he would be a lot more relaxed “if we knew what we were transitioning to”. In extremis, this mistrust manifests itself in threats to oust May by submitting letters to the backbench 1922 committee demanding a vote of no confidence. “We’ve made our position clear to the prime minister,” said one Eurosceptic. “If she lets us down, the letters will go in.”
The suspicion felt by the group, cruelly dubbed “Mogglodytes” by opponents, extends even to Brexit-backing cabinet ministers. In Thursday’s meeting it appeared as if Michael Gove, the environment secretary, and others were prepared to remain in regulatory alignment into the future on cars, aviation and chemicals. “They’re heading for alignment on industrial goods,” a source familiar with the discussions confirmed.
the ERG could bring May down tomorrow if they wanted to. Why won't they? Because they know in their heart of hearts that Brexit is undeliverable in the form they claim they want? Cold reality is less congenial than warm grievance.
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill. Why would they want minus when they could get services, a British strength, included with Norway? I guess that's the price for some control over FoM.
Is anyone aware of any analysis which shows how much of our *service* exports are enabled by various EU agreements?
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
"The correct response won’t be found in attacking the concept of universal healthcare, as Donald Trump bizarrely tried to in his recent Twitter rant, but nor is it to kick the problem into the long grass of some Royal Commission-style process."
I actually am surprised - a commission could well be a way to kick a problem into the long grass if done wrong, but I thought all parties were pretty much in agreement that merely increasing investment is not the answer, as even if we accept more money is needed, it clearly isn't the only problem. So what harm in continuing to argue for more money and having a commission, which they could always pull out of supporting if it does look like kicking things into the long grass?
It's also odd when you consider Labour's manifesto on the related issue of a National Care Service very much welcomed a cross party approach
We will seek consensus on a cross-party basis about how it should be funded, with options including wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy.
Why happy to seek cross party consensus on one aspect of Health and Social Care but not the other?
Mr. kle4, you can't weaponise the NHS if it's being considered in a relatively neutral, cross-party and serious way.
Yep. No way will Labour sign up. It would totally neutralise the issue for next GE, unless commission reported before then. Labour could perhaps agree to it, but only if a two year period until reports.
the ERG could bring May down tomorrow if they wanted to. Why won't they? Because they know in their heart of hearts that Brexit is undeliverable in the form they claim they want? Cold reality is less congenial than warm grievance.
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill. Why would they want minus when they could get services, a British strength, included with Norway? I guess that's the price for some control over FoM.
Is anyone aware of any analysis which shows how much of our *service* exports are enabled by various EU agreements?
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
Take a look at GATS modes of supply. Modes 1 and 4 are not present or are heavily restricted under CETA and the Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU refusal at UK insistence to allow Indian mode 4 access is in part responsible for there being no EU-India FTA.
"The correct response won’t be found in attacking the concept of universal healthcare, as Donald Trump bizarrely tried to in his recent Twitter rant, but nor is it to kick the problem into the long grass of some Royal Commission-style process."
I actually am surprised - a commission could well be a way to kick a problem into the long grass if done wrong, but I thought all parties were pretty much in agreement that merely increasing investment is not the answer, as even if we accept more money is needed, it clearly isn't the only problem. So what harm in continuing to argue for more money and having a commission, which they could always pull out of supporting if it does look like kicking things into the long grass?
It's also odd when you consider Labour's manifesto on the related issue of a National Care Service very much welcomed a cross party approach
We will seek consensus on a cross-party basis about how it should be funded, with options including wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy.
Why happy to seek cross party consensus on one aspect of Health and Social Care but not the other?
Labour thinks it has a good solution to the problems of the NHS but not to the question of financing long term care? The two are related of course.
Marr showed the front page on his show. JHB said that we should be careful about making stories about sexual harassment based on who the accused is. Unfortunately I think that's generally the way things work. Stories about politicians, footballers and celebs get attention for who the accused is.
"The correct response won’t be found in attacking the concept of universal healthcare, as Donald Trump bizarrely tried to in his recent Twitter rant, but nor is it to kick the problem into the long grass of some Royal Commission-style process."
I actually am surprised - a commission could well be a way to kick a problem into the long grass if done wrong, but I thought all parties were pretty much in agreement that merely increasing investment is not the answer, as even if we accept more money is needed, it clearly isn't the only problem. So what harm in continuing to argue for more money and having a commission, which they could always pull out of supporting if it does look like kicking things into the long grass?
It's also odd when you consider Labour's manifesto on the related issue of a National Care Service very much welcomed a cross party approach
We will seek consensus on a cross-party basis about how it should be funded, with options including wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy.
Why happy to seek cross party consensus on one aspect of Health and Social Care but not the other?
Labour thinks it has a good solution to the problems of the NHS but not to the question of financing long term care? The two are related of course.
Yes but even if that is so, that they have decided they have an adequate solution to Health Care already, nothing prevents them from saying that and pushing for greater investment and backing a commission to look into things just in case there are other issues too, the latter doesn't mean they cannot express a view about funding.
the ERG could bring May down tomorrow if they wanted to. Why won't they? Because they know in their heart of hearts that Brexit is undeliverable in the form they claim they want? Cold reality is less congenial than warm grievance.
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill. Why would they want minus when they could get services, a British strength, included with Norway? I guess that's the price for some control over FoM.
Is anyone aware of any analysis which shows how much of our *service* exports are enabled by various EU agreements?
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
Take a look at GATS modes of supply. Modes 1 and 4 are not present or are heavily restricted under CETA and the Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU refusal at UK insistence to allow Indian mode 4 access is in part responsible for there being no EU-India FTA.
And I should have said. Modes 1 and 4 are the valuable ones. That's why they get restricted, and not just by the EU. The EU has potentially more clout than the UK in pushing services in its FTAs.
Marr showed the front page on his show. JHB said that we should be careful about making stories about sexual harassment based on who the accused is. Unfortunately I think that's generally the way things work. Stories about politicians, footballers and celebs get attention for who the accused is.
indeed - in this case the charity link alone makes it very newsworthy but if true pretty sad as well.
Which while ensuring the Tories would be largest party would still see Corbyn as PM in all likelihood with SNP, Plaid and Green support and the LDs abstaining (though it might need SF to take their seats to vote for Corbyn to become PM to ensure that is the case)
the ERG could bring May down tomorrow if they wanted to. Why won't they? Because they know in their heart of hearts that Brexit is undeliverable in the form they claim they want? Cold reality is less congenial than warm grievance.
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill. Why would they want minus when they could get services, a British strength, included with Norway? I guess that's the price for some control over FoM.
Is anyone aware of any analysis which shows how much of our *service* exports are enabled by various EU agreements?
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
Take a look at GATS modes of supply. Modes 1 and 4 are not present or are heavily restricted under CETA and the Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU refusal at UK insistence to allow Indian mode 4 access is in part responsible for there being no EU-India FTA.
And I should have said. Modes 1 and 4 are the valuable ones. That's why they get restricted, and not just by the EU. The EU has potentially more clout than the UK in pushing services in its FTAs.
Thankyou. It would be good to see some kind of analysis on how dependent our industries are on the various modes; how liberalised the EU single market services is etc.
In other words, what are we about to give up?
I’m an exporter of consulting services, and we export globally, without too much hassle. We presumably don’t need to worry too much about single markets and customs unions unless travel to the EU becomes difficult. I wonder how much of our service exports are like mine, and how much are in more regulated (and therefore at threat) areas.
Marr showed the front page on his show. JHB said that we should be careful about making stories about sexual harassment based on who the accused is. Unfortunately I think that's generally the way things work. Stories about politicians, footballers and celebs get attention for who the accused is.
indeed - in this case the charity link alone makes it very newsworthy but if true pretty sad as well.
JHB made her comment in regards to his prominence that came off the back of the death of his wife. But you're right, there were allegations against him in 2015 when he was at Save the Children.
I commented earlier that Penny Mordaunt was impressive on Marr over Oxfam. That was followed by a chorus of remain supporters calling her a liar or that she should not be a conservative and even less complimentary language.
Now to be fair I know little about PM's heresy but the public in general, who are not obsessed with Brexit, will approve of her actions and words and indeed the governments.
Maybe this disconnect between the bubble and the public accounts why TM is receiving improving support and Brexit is not on the radar of most, even less who said what to who. They are just getting on with their lives
the ERG could bring May down tomorrow if they wanted to. Why won't they? Because they know in their heart of hearts that Brexit is undeliverable in the form they claim they want? Cold reality is less congenial than warm grievance.
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill.
Is anyone aware of any analysis which shows how much of our *service* exports are enabled by various EU agreements?
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
Take a look at GATS modes of supply. Modes 1 and 4 are not present or are heavily restricted under CETA and the Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU refusal at UK insistence to allow Indian mode 4 access is in part responsible for there being no EU-India FTA.
And I should have said. Modes 1 and 4 are the valuable ones. That's why they get restricted, and not just by the EU. The EU has potentially more clout than the UK in pushing services in its FTAs.
Thankyou. It would be good to see some kind of analysis on how dependent our industries are on the various modes; how liberalised the EU single market services is etc.
In other words, what are we about to give up?
I’m an exporter of consulting services, and we export globally, without too much hassle. We presumably don’t need to worry too much about single markets and customs unions unless travel to the EU becomes difficult. I wonder how much of our service exports are like mine, and how much are in more regulated (and therefore at threat) areas.
This is a point often missed by some of the more enthusiastic Remainers; the fact that there is no single market in services does not preclude their export. In addition, while it’s true that c. 80% of the economy consists of services, by definition much of this is not tradeable internationally, haircuts being a simple example. Trade in goods, and the arrangements governing them, are more important than the raw numbers suggest. That’s not to say we should accept an assymetric customs union that lets third parties with EU trade deals freely sell into our markets, when we do not enjoy reciprocal access to theirs.
Which while ensuring the Tories would be largest party would still see Corbyn as PM in all likelihood with SNP, Plaid and Green support and the LDs abstaining (though it might need SF to take their seats to vote for Corbyn to become PM to ensure that is the case)
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Oh God. Oh God no. Whenever a politician or journalist starts banging on about IT with a fashionable tag ("Smart Border 2.0") run, run for the hills, and don't look back. You will not get that done before Brexit day (fourteen months and counting) and you will not get it done acceptably within five years. Look at Universal Credit, the NHS spine, oh my God no. Just no. (hides under table)
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Oh God. Oh God no. Whenever a politician or journalist starts banging on about IT with a fashionable tag ("Smart Border 2.0") run, run for the hills, and don't look back. You will not get that done before Brexit day (fourteen months and counting) and you will not get it done acceptably within five years. Look at Universal Credit, the NHS spine, oh my God no. Just no. (hides under table)
Even "Welcome to Northern Ireland" signs caused major political ructions. The idea that we could contemplate Smart Border 2.0 solutions with ANPR cameras and electronic tagging is fantasy.
the ERG could bring May down tomorrow if they wanted to. Why won't they? Because they know in their heart of hearts that Brexit is undeliverable in the form they claim they want? Cold reality is less congenial than warm grievance.
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill. Why would they want minus when they could get services, a British strength, included with Norway? I guess that's the price for some control over FoM.
Is anyone aware of any analysis which shows how much of our *service* exports are enabled by various EU agreements?
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
Take a look at GATS modes of supply. Modes 1 and 4 are not present or are heavily restricted under CETA and the Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU refusal at UK insistence to allow Indian mode 4 access is in part responsible for there being no EU-India FTA.
And I should have said. Modes 1 and 4 are the valuable ones. That's why they get restricted, and not just by the EU. The EU has potentially more clout than the UK in pushing services in its FTAs.
Thankyou. It would be good to see some kind of analysis on how dependent our industries are on the various modes; how liberalised the EU single market services is etc.
In other words, what are we about to give up?
I’m an exporter of consulting services, and we export globally, without too much hassle. We presumably don’t need to worry too much about single markets and customs unions unless travel to the EU becomes difficult. I wonder how much of our service exports are like mine, and how much are in more regulated (and therefore at threat) areas.
My take is that there's a blurring between the different modes of supply. The difference between mode 1, cross-border supply, and mode 2, consumption abroad, isn't always clear because there isn't a physical movement of goods. But when it hits regulation, as it will with finance, it does become clearer. Mode 4, presence of natural persons, could be seen.as an immigration issue rather than a trade issue, and usually is.
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
Because the polls are always right.
I think the chances of May calling another early election are roughly inline with the chances of my cat winning the nobel prize for literature.
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
Because the polls are always right.
I presume that since 2017 polling methodologies have changed to take into account the greater likelihood of younger voters to vote. They are no longer as inaccurate therefore as they were in 2017. So why is Labour behind?
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Oh God. Oh God no. Whenever a politician or journalist starts banging on about IT with a fashionable tag ("Smart Border 2.0") run, run for the hills, and don't look back. You will not get that done before Brexit day (fourteen months and counting) and you will not get it done acceptably within five years. Look at Universal Credit, the NHS spine, oh my God no. Just no. (hides under table)
Even "Welcome to Northern Ireland" signs caused major political ructions. The idea that we could contemplate Smart Border 2.0 solutions with ANPR cameras and electronic tagging is fantasy.
Or it does not fit your agenda even though it's author is the European Parliament
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
Because the polls are always right.
I think the chances of May calling another early election are roughly inline with the chances of my cat winning the nobel prize for literature.
I think you're taking my post with a little more seriousness than it deserved ...
Is anyone aware of any analysis which shows how much of our *service* exports are enabled by various EU agreements?
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
Take a look at GATS modes of supply. Modes 1 and 4 are not present or are heavily restricted under CETA and the Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU refusal at UK insistence to allow Indian mode 4 access is in part responsible for there being no EU-India FTA.
And I should have said. Modes 1 and 4 are the valuable ones. That's why they get restricted, and not just by the EU. The EU has potentially more clout than the UK in pushing services in its FTAs.
Thankyou. It would be good to see some kind of analysis on how dependent our industries are on the various modes; how liberalised the EU single market services is etc.
In other words, what are we about to give up?
I’m an exporter of consulting services, and we export globally, without too much hassle. We presumably don’t need to worry too much about single markets and customs unions unless travel to the EU becomes difficult. I wonder how much of our service exports are like mine, and how much are in more regulated (and therefore at threat) areas.
My take is that there's a blurring between the different modes of supply. The difference between mode 1, cross-border supply, and mode 2, consumption abroad, isn't always clear because there isn't a physical movement of goods. But when it hits regulation, as it will with finance, it does become clearer. Mode 4, presence of natural persons, could be seen.as an immigration issue rather than a trade issue, and usually is.
Further on this. There are all sorts of restrictive practices that are not applicable to fellow EU members. For example editors of newspapers in Poland have to be Polish nationals. They couldn't exclude a Dane because of EU non-discrimination rules, but they can prevent a Ukrainian national being editor. There's a mass of this stuff.
Its not that Gove doesnt have a vision (unpleasant though that is). Its not that he isnt intelligent and articulate.
What makes him unfit for high office is himself. A political party that wants to be taken seriously does not make a refugee from Monty Python or the Goon Show its leader.
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
Because the polls are always right.
I presume that since 2017 polling methodologies have changed to take into account the greater likelihood of younger voters to vote. They are no longer as inaccurate therefore as they were in 2017. So why is Labour behind?
I'm very sceptical when it comes to political polling, yet alone polling about a GE years in the future. They happen so rarely that any adjustments to improve accuracy are frequently years out of date, and are fighting the last battle. Adjustments that take into account the greater likelihood of younger voters to vote after 2017 might miss (say) an increased women's vote, or a decrease in pensioners at the polling station.
It also seems that pollsters sometimes out adjustment on top of adjustment, meaning that any resulting accuracy is more chance than planned.
Besides, sometimes I think politics would be a heck of a lot better if politicians mostly ignored general polls (though scientific ones on specific policies could be useful).
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Oh God. Oh God no. Whenever a politician or journalist starts banging on about IT with a fashionable tag ("Smart Border 2.0") run, run for the hills, and don't look back. You will not get that done before Brexit day (fourteen months and counting) and you will not get it done acceptably within five years. Look at Universal Credit, the NHS spine, oh my God no. Just no. (hides under table)
One of the report's conclusions:
"There will be a need of a Customs and Border solution post-Brexit on 29 March 2019 at 23.00, regardless of political solution and Brexit negotiation results. It will have severe consequences if such a Customs and Border solution is not designed, developed and implemented to facilitate the movement of people and trade."
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
Because the polls are always right.
I presume that since 2017 polling methodologies have changed to take into account the greater likelihood of younger voters to vote. They are no longer as inaccurate therefore as they were in 2017. So why is Labour behind?
I'm very sceptical when it comes to political polling, yet alone polling about a GE years in the future. They happen so rarely that any adjustments to improve accuracy are frequently years out of date, and are fighting the last battle. Adjustments that take into account the greater likelihood of younger voters to vote after 2017 might miss (say) an increased women's vote, or a decrease in pensioners at the polling station.
It also seems that pollsters sometimes out adjustment on top of adjustment, meaning that any resulting accuracy is more chance than planned.
Besides, sometimes I think politics would be a heck of a lot better if politicians mostly ignored general polls (though scientific ones on specific policies could be useful).
On one of those very rare occasions when Margaret Thatcher was right, she chided David Cameron for not being more behind in the polls. What she meant was that oppositions are supposed to be more popular than the government between elections. Polls might not be able to predict accurately the exact result of the next election, but when a not very good government is either neck and neck with or ahead of the opposition, it does suggest that when the election eventually does come, the opposition will have a problem winning.
Its also true that there is a pattern of underestimation in polling. In 2010 the polls underestimated the Labour vote. In 2015 the polls underestimated the Tory vote. in 2017 the polls underestimated the Labour vote.
In 2022 its the Tory turn to be underestimated -and thats bad news for Corbyn.
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Definition of yada yada : boring or empty talk listening to a lot of yada yada about the economy —often used interjectionally especially in recounting words regarded as too dull or predictable to be worth repeating.
Please stop trying to confuse this MP with the facts.
Take a look at GATS modes of supply. Modes 1 and 4 are not present or are heavily restricted under CETA and the Ukraine Association Agreement. The EU refusal at UK insistence to allow Indian mode 4 access is in part responsible for there being no EU-India FTA.
And I should have said. Modes 1 and 4 are the valuable ones. That's why they get restricted, and not just by the EU. The EU has potentially more clout than the UK in pushing services in its FTAs.
Thankyou. It would be good to see some kind of analysis on how dependent our industries are on the various modes; how liberalised the EU single market services is etc.
.
This is a point often missed by some of the more enthusiastic Remainers; the fact that there is no single market in services does not preclude their export. In addition, while it’s true that c. 80% of the economy consists of services, by definition much of this is not tradeable internationally, haircuts being a simple example. Trade in goods, and the arrangements governing them, are more important than the raw numbers suggest. That’s not to say we should accept an assymetric customs union that lets third parties with EU trade deals freely sell into our markets, when we do not enjoy reciprocal access to theirs.
In the 1960s, ICI employed about 200,000 people. Some were plant engineers and chemists, but the majority provided services such as cleaners, gardeners, chauffeurs, lorry drivers, accountants, IT people, restaurant staff etc. All of their salaries were counted as part of ICI's added value and therefore counted as industrial production in the national statistics.
Subsequently ICI outsourced almost all its services and slimmed down to about 40,000 people. Its added value slimmed down accordingly and so did industrial production. The people doing the services were the same kind of people doing the same kind of work but for different employers and were now classified as "services". The work done didn't change. Only the statistics did.
My point is that industrial production has a massive hinterland of services and is much more important than the raw figures and trends suggest. I'm agreeing with you that "Trade in goods, and the arrangements governing them, are more important than the raw numbers suggest."
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
Because the polls are always right.
I presume that since 2017 polling methodologies have changed to take into account the greater likelihood of younger voters to vote. They are no longer as inaccurate therefore as they were in 2017. So why is Labour behind?
I'm very sceptical when it comes to political polling, yet alone polling about a GE years in the future. They happen so rarely that any adjustments to improve accuracy are frequently years out of date, and are fighting the last battle. Adjustments that take into account the greater likelihood of younger voters to vote after 2017 might miss (say) an increased women's vote, or a decrease in pensioners at the polling station.
It also seems that pollsters sometimes out adjustment on top of adjustment, meaning that any resulting accuracy is more chance than planned.
Besides, sometimes I think politics would be a heck of a lot better if politicians mostly ignored general polls (though scientific ones on specific policies could be useful).
On one of those very rare occasions when Margaret Thatcher was right, she chided David Cameron for not being more behind in the polls. What she meant was that oppositions are supposed to be more popular than the government between elections. Polls might not be able to predict accurately the exact result of the next election, but when a not very good government is either neck and neck with or ahead of the opposition, it does suggest that when the election eventually does come, the opposition will have a problem winning.
Its also true that there is a pattern of underestimation in polling. In 2010 the polls underestimated the Labour vote. In 2015 the polls underestimated the Tory vote. in 2017 the polls underestimated the Labour vote.
In 2022 its the Tory turn to be underestimated -and thats bad news for Corbyn.
The most revealing thing JHB said was her aside that the EU is much better at negotiation than we are.
European politicians operate under PR which puts a premium on such arts. Our politicians are better at posturing and shouting at each other across a narrow aisle.
If politicians who lie, obfuscate, mislead or are a tad delicate with the actuality had no future in politics then the House of Commons would be empty.
There’s no need to be that restrictive. Just excluding liars would exclude Penny Mordaunt.
Find me a politician who hasn't lied and I'll show you a liar.
Were you ever a politician, Jack?
I cannot tell a lie ....
I assume you’re backing JRM for next Leader.
With his Catholic views he must think every monarch after James II / VII is a Protestant usurper and it is time to install the Jacobites back on to the throne, which he will do when he becomes PM.
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Exactly , you just need to watch the customs programmes on TV, every American driving over the border is checked and many pulled out and their vehicles and luggage dismantled. it would mean need for jungle camps in Calais any more though so good for France.
Just like JokeLundt; Sorry Jockaneseland. Only open borders and customs are offered to the few but not the many.
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Oh God. Oh God no. Whenever a politician or journalist starts banging on about IT with a fashionable tag ("Smart Border 2.0") run, run for the hills, and don't look back. You will not get that done before Brexit day (fourteen months and counting) and you will not get it done acceptably within five years. Look at Universal Credit, the NHS spine, oh my God no. Just no. (hides under table)
One of the report's conclusions:
"There will be a need of a Customs and Border solution post-Brexit on 29 March 2019 at 23.00, regardless of political solution and Brexit negotiation results. It will have severe consequences if such a Customs and Border solution is not designed, developed and implemented to facilitate the movement of people and trade."
Well there's going to be severe consequences then. David Herdson's post last year about the solution to the NI/I border problem - basically ignore it and pretend it's not happening - was prescient.
Which while ensuring the Tories would be largest party would still see Corbyn as PM in all likelihood with SNP, Plaid and Green support and the LDs abstaining (though it might need SF to take their seats to vote for Corbyn to become PM to ensure that is the case)
SF will not take their seats.
On this poll average translated into seats if the LDs abstain whether Sinn Fein take their seats or not would make the difference between a Labour plus SNP plus Plaid plus Green plus Sinn Fein minority government or a Tory plus DUP minority government.
The temptation of the first pro Republican UK PM might be too much for Sinn Fein to resist
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Oh God. Oh God no. Whenever a politician or journalist starts banging on about IT with a fashionable tag ("Smart Border 2.0") run, run for the hills, and don't look back. You will not get that done before Brexit day (fourteen months and counting) and you will not get it done acceptably within five years. Look at Universal Credit, the NHS spine, oh my God no. Just no. (hides under table)
One of the report's conclusions:
"There will be a need of a Customs and Border solution post-Brexit on 29 March 2019 at 23.00, regardless of political solution and Brexit negotiation results. It will have severe consequences if such a Customs and Border solution is not designed, developed and implemented to facilitate the movement of people and trade."
Well there's going to be severe consequences then. David Herdson's post last year about the solution to the NI/I border problem - basically ignore it and pretend it's not happening - was prescient.
There is certainly no way the Smart Border 2.0 or whatever it is called will be implemented by 2019. As you say, more like 5 years or more away.
As to ELINT I think we can survive the Ulster-Jock border. Once 'Scavenger' arrives - and our T1's provide Airspace-Defence in the RoI - our resources can move to other issues.
An intriguing post. The implication is that May's hard-ish Brexit line is in order to keep herself in post. In terms of pragmatism, the idea that the threat to her is coming from her right is somewhat bizarre, since she is the best bet for keeping the party together and delivering a medium Brexit. To an outsider like me, the Tory Party seems to have already transmog(g)rified into the Brexit Party, so it's almost surreal to think it might go full Ukip. Not that I mind - it would be a delicious irony if the referendum that was designed to keep the party together finally results in its meltdown. At present, under May, the Tories have a chance to sneak back into power, because a chunk of Labour's support is starting to drift to the LibDems, and that will split the Left/Remain vote. If the Tories ditch her, the party will lose its remaining Remainers, and the Brexit War will break out in earnest.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
If this continues, and builds into a healthy 10-15% Conservative lead, then May should go to the country. She should use Labour's uncertainty over the EU to make it a vote over Brexit. She should put policies on things like social care and a dementia tax at the core of her prospectus.
Because the polls are always right.
If the Conservatives build a healthy 10-15% poll lead, then May will HAVE to go to the country, before Labour comes to its senses and boots out Corbyn....
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
The Tories, under a series of wacky leaders, weren't popular during that period. QED.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
The Tories, under a series of wacky leaders, weren't popular during that period. QED.
Yes, LD support is asymmetrical.
Thus, a successful Labour Party needs not only that the Conservatives are unpopular, but that balance of disaffection to the Tories is to Labour rather than to the LDs.
One would therefore assume that successful Labour governments tend to be centrist.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
The Tories, under a series of wacky leaders, weren't popular during that period. QED.
Yes but those left-wing voters protesting by voting LD then would never dream of voting Tory. LDs basically offer a protest vote for Tory voters who could never vote Labour or Labour voters who could never vote Tory as was particularly the case in the 1992 to 1997 parliaments and the 2001 to 2005 parliaments. That trend is also particularly true in local council elections, hence the LDs can win council seats in both Liverpool and Surrey on occasion
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
That actually predated the Iraq war. Many disillusioned Labour voters viewed the Blair Govt as so rightwing and neo Thatcherite that they abstained or voted LibDem at the 2001 election. I happily supported Charkes Kennedy's LibDems in 2001 and 2005 - though I also failed to vote Labour in 1997.
Which while ensuring the Tories would be largest party would still see Corbyn as PM in all likelihood with SNP, Plaid and Green support and the LDs abstaining (though it might need SF to take their seats to vote for Corbyn to become PM to ensure that is the case)
SF will not take their seats.
That bald statement needs some scrutiny.
OK, so SF doesn't recognise Westminster's authority over NI. But SF has moved through Good Friday and on to power sharing in NI. And it might be possible to convince itself that its long term interests are best served by working with Corbyn to say, get a Referendum on unification through Westminster.
And you can be certain that if SF's votes are the difference between Corbyn getting a Queen's Speech through Westminster or not, Corbyn will offer WHATEVER THEY WANT.
Plus, it must be rather galling for SF watch the DUP claim credit for everything that comes the way of NI, because they have the Tories over a barrel. Those on the Left who were bitching about the DUP's billion would suddenly go very quiet, if the cost of SF support for Labour was NI getting a Referendum on rejoining with the Republic.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
That actually predated the Iraq war. Many disillusioned Labour voters viewed the Blair Govt as so rightwing and neo Thatcherite that they abstained or voted LibDem at the 2001 election. I happily supported Charkes Kennedy's LibDems in 2001 and 2005 - though I also failed to vote Labour in 1997.
Though the big gains for the LDs ie plus 11 MPs, came in 2005 not 2001 when they gained 6
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
The Tories, under a series of wacky leaders, weren't popular during that period. QED.
Yes but those left-wing voters protesting by voting LD then would never dream of voting Tory. LDs basically offer a protest vote for Tory voters who could never vote Labour or Labour voters who could never vote Tory as was particularly the case in the 1992 to 1997 parliaments and the 2001 to 2005 parliaments. That trend is also particularly true in local council elections, hence the LDs can win council seats in both Liverpool and Surrey on occasion
I suspect that the Coalition with the Tories will have seriously damaged LibDem prospects with left of centre voters for the foreseeable future. It will take a good generation before the 'Tories' little Helpers' charge ceases to have salience. Alienated Labour voters who in the past would have considered the LibDems are now much more likely to switch to the Greens.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
The Tories, under a series of wacky leaders, weren't popular during that period. QED.
Yes, LD support is asymmetrical.
Thus, a successful Labour Party needs not only that the Conservatives are unpopular, but that balance of disaffection to the Tories is to Labour rather than to the LDs.
One would therefore assume that successful Labour governments tend to be centrist.
You can see why some of us think Corbyn maxed out the possible vote available to him - then or in the future - in June 2017.
Seems to me the Tories actually need a Lib Dem revival to draw off votes from Labour. Their own vote IS strong and stable but as long as Labour remains around 40% no one can win a majority. And Labour can't pull away because they are dire, despite the ludicrous narrative that Corb is a political genius now.
That's why I'm afraid of a LibDem national revival. I'm happy for LibDems to stay around 7% nationally while pushing ahead in local elections and active membership. It's a longer term more realistic strategy that also diminishes the chances of another Tory government.
Liberal revivals in the past have tended to be more at Tory expense than Labour. That was clearly the case under the Macmillan and Heath Governments - despite some regional variations. Even the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s was at least as damaging to the Tories in the pre-Falklands period as reflected in by election defeats at Croydon North west , Crosby & Hillhead.
Technically it's the other way around. Liberals do better when the Tories are unpopular, since former Tory voters are willing to protest by voting LibDem but not by voting Labour, whereas when Labour is unpopular both dissatisfied Labour voters and centerist voters more readily vote Tory to keep Labour out.
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
Though from 2003 to 2007 the LDs revived with left-wing anti Iraq War Labour voters switching to them while centrists voted for Blair
That actually predated the Iraq war. Many disillusioned Labour voters viewed the Blair Govt as so rightwing and neo Thatcherite that they abstained or voted LibDem at the 2001 election. I happily supported Charkes Kennedy's LibDems in 2001 and 2005 - though I also failed to vote Labour in 1997.
Though the big gains for the LDs ie plus 11 MPs, came in 2005 not 2001 when they gained 6
That is true - but largely reflects the fact that by 2005 Labour was falling back heavily - rather than any strong LibDem momentum.
Which while ensuring the Tories would be largest party would still see Corbyn as PM in all likelihood with SNP, Plaid and Green support and the LDs abstaining (though it might need SF to take their seats to vote for Corbyn to become PM to ensure that is the case)
SF will not take their seats.
That bald statement needs some scrutiny.
OK, so SF doesn't recognise Westminster's authority over NI. But SF has moved through Good Friday and on to power sharing in NI. And it might be possible to convince itself that its long term interests are best served by working with Corbyn to say, get a Referendum on unification through Westminster.
A referendum on unification has already been got through Westminster as part of the Good Friday Agreement. It's within the executive power of the Secretary of State to call one now.
If politicians who lie, obfuscate, mislead or are a tad delicate with the actuality had no future in politics then the House of Commons would be empty.
There’s no need to be that restrictive. Just excluding liars would exclude Penny Mordaunt.
Find me a politician who hasn't lied and I'll show you a liar.
Were you ever a politician, Jack?
I cannot tell a lie ....
I assume you’re backing JRM for next Leader.
With his Catholic views he must think every monarch after James II / VII is a Protestant usurper and it is time to install the Jacobites back on to the throne, which he will do when he becomes PM.
It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures, with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution.
Exactly , you just need to watch the customs programmes on TV, every American driving over the border is checked and many pulled out and their vehicles and luggage dismantled. it would mean need for jungle camps in Calais any more though so good for France.
Just like JokeLundt; Sorry Jockaneseland. Only open borders and customs are offered to the few but not the many.
Trot-on Unckie-Clown; trot-on.
usual gibberish only an imbecile could understand. Stop dribbling and use standard English if you are capable.
Comments
It looks like the government, or at least May, is at last giving some thought to where they want to go with Brexit. Close alignment with the EU on goods and buccaneering on services. This will translate into Norway minus once it goes through the EU mill. Why would they want minus when they could get services, a British strength, included with Norway? I guess that's the price for some control over FoM.
The Iraq war was essentially peripheral to voters’ concerns. Brexit is going to underpin every aspect of government policy for years to come. At present the Conservatives are being driven by dogma and actively hostile to evidence-based policy-making. They cannot afford for large parts of the public to blame them for a dishonest Brexit. They have nothing else to offer.
Lastly, Tony Blair got 35% of the vote in 2005. If the Conservatives get the same in 2022, they will almost certainly be facing a hammering.
It appears the ERG have May by the balls.
Hardest Brexit, or we depose you.
It’s telling though that no-one knows - including Rees-Mogg - what our end-state with Europe is to be. May is edging backwards into Brexit, trying to follow the path of least resistance. And so far, she’s got away with it. It’s an astonishing achievement. A kind of anti-leadership. An example of the inverse fuhrerprinzip. Merkelling, if you like.
Liegeance Jacobites consider that following the death of Henry IX in 1807 the crown lawfully passed to George I (George III in the Hanovarian line) and by descent to Elizabeth II.
"The correct response won’t be found in attacking the concept of universal healthcare, as Donald Trump bizarrely tried to in his recent Twitter rant, but nor is it to kick the problem into the long grass of some Royal Commission-style process."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-winter-crisis-jonathan-ashworth-jeremy-hunt-hospitals-waiting-times-a8204461.html
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.
Financial service passporting is the famous one, which as it stands we are going to lose.
In th face of it, it’s demented to sacrifice the single market for services, given it’s our main export strength. But the single market for services is not actually very advanced, is it?
It's also odd when you consider Labour's manifesto on the related issue of a National Care Service very much welcomed a cross party approach
We will seek consensus on a cross-party basis about how it should be funded, with options including wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy.
Why happy to seek cross party consensus on one aspect of Health and Social Care but not the other?
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/tradekb/Knowledgebase/50665/Modes-of-Supply
It would be good to see some kind of analysis on how dependent our industries are on the various modes; how liberalised the EU single market services is etc.
In other words, what are we about to give up?
I’m an exporter of consulting services, and we export globally, without too much hassle. We presumably don’t need to worry too much about single markets and customs unions unless travel to the EU becomes difficult. I wonder how much of our service exports are like mine, and how much are in more regulated (and therefore at threat) areas.
Now to be fair I know little about PM's heresy but the public in general, who are not obsessed with Brexit, will approve of her actions and words and indeed the governments.
Maybe this disconnect between the bubble and the public accounts why TM is receiving improving support and Brexit is not on the radar of most, even less who said what to who. They are just getting on with their lives
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/birmingham-people-power-brum_uk_5a7da918e4b044b3821c80d9?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage
"Liquid democracy" sounds like what Italian populist movement talks about
Because the polls are always right.
What makes him unfit for high office is himself. A political party that wants to be taken seriously does not make a refugee from Monty Python or the Goon Show its leader.
It also seems that pollsters sometimes out adjustment on top of adjustment, meaning that any resulting accuracy is more chance than planned.
Besides, sometimes I think politics would be a heck of a lot better if politicians mostly ignored general polls (though scientific ones on specific policies could be useful).
"There will be a need of a Customs and Border solution post-Brexit on 29 March 2019
at 23.00, regardless of political solution and Brexit negotiation results. It will have
severe consequences if such a Customs and Border solution is not designed,
developed and implemented to facilitate the movement of people and trade."
Its also true that there is a pattern of underestimation in polling. In 2010 the polls underestimated the Labour vote. In 2015 the polls underestimated the Tory vote. in 2017 the polls underestimated the Labour vote.
In 2022 its the Tory turn to be underestimated -and thats bad news for Corbyn.
Definition of yada yada
: boring or empty talk listening to a lot of yada yada about the economy —often used interjectionally especially in recounting words regarded as too dull or predictable to be worth repeating.
Please stop trying to confuse this MP with the facts.
Subsequently ICI outsourced almost all its services and slimmed down to about 40,000 people. Its added value slimmed down accordingly and so did industrial production. The people doing the services were the same kind of people doing the same kind of work but for different employers and were now classified as "services". The work done didn't change. Only the statistics did.
My point is that industrial production has a massive hinterland of services and is much more important than the raw figures and trends suggest. I'm agreeing with you that "Trade in goods, and the arrangements governing them, are more important than the raw numbers suggest."
Trot-on Unckie-Clown; trot-on.
The temptation of the first pro Republican UK PM might be too much for Sinn Fein to resist
https://twitter.com/christianwolmar/status/961982432152051712
As to ELINT I think we can survive the Ulster-Jock border. Once 'Scavenger' arrives - and our T1's provide Airspace-Defence in the RoI - our resources can move to other issues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43023051
If this pattern persists then a LibDem revival is most likely when the Tories lose support if May concedes to the hard Brexiters. So Barnesian need not be afraid, not least because in such circumstances Zak's days are numbered.
(tongue might be in cheek.....)
Thus, a successful Labour Party needs not only that the Conservatives are unpopular, but that balance of disaffection to the Tories is to Labour rather than to the LDs.
One would therefore assume that successful Labour governments tend to be centrist.
OK, so SF doesn't recognise Westminster's authority over NI. But SF has moved through Good Friday and on to power sharing in NI. And it might be possible to convince itself that its long term interests are best served by working with Corbyn to say, get a Referendum on unification through Westminster.
And you can be certain that if SF's votes are the difference between Corbyn getting a Queen's Speech through Westminster or not, Corbyn will offer WHATEVER THEY WANT.
Plus, it must be rather galling for SF watch the DUP claim credit for everything that comes the way of NI, because they have the Tories over a barrel. Those on the Left who were bitching about the DUP's billion would suddenly go very quiet, if the cost of SF support for Labour was NI getting a Referendum on rejoining with the Republic.
NEW THREAD