Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories go into Thursday’s locals in a much better national

13

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    She's screwed. This was one reason why she needed a large majority, so she could in fact compromise more down the line.

    It's a high stakes game I think - I don't see how the government can propose its CU idea formally without being sunk by its own internal divisions, but as you say parliament doesn't look like it will pass anything else. So the compromise option is off the table due to the indecisive 2017 vote, and it'll be a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Parliament doesn't want either, but if no government can pass any options, hard Brexit is still more likely than no Brexit, though the latter is not impossible. The chance of softer brexits was ditched in favour of going all in to stop brexit entirely, I think, which is high risk.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,833
    edited May 1
    kle4 said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Seems like if he really has behaved in such a way there will soon be plenty of others to corroborate it, since if you behave that way with one, you probably do with others. If he has gone on angry, foul mouthed tirades and the like, but is denying it because he doesn't think that counted as bullying, then he might be in trouble I suppose.
    The 'bullied' man seems like a wimp. If anyone else did have issues with the Speaker I hope self respect would prevent them making it public. The 'bullied. man was over 60 for heavens sake. Can anyone look after themselves anymore?
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,194
    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    The bigger problem is, 2 + years on, we still don't know what we want. May is spending vast amounts of time and energy resolving internal political disputes relating to the overall direction of Brexit, rather than focusing on getting a decent deal with the EU.

    It would surely have made sense to try and thrash this question out before we triggered article 50.

    Unless something changes, it seems likely that we will end up with an endless transitory BINO.


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,798
    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    She's screwed. This was one reason why she needed a large majority, so she could in fact compromise more down the line.

    It's a high stakes game I think - I don't see how the government can propose its CU idea formally without being sunk by its own internal divisions, but as you say parliament doesn't look like it will pass anything else. So the compromise option is off the table due to the indecisive 2017 vote, and it'll be a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Parliament doesn't want either, but if no government can pass any options, hard Brexit is still more likely than no Brexit, though the latter is not impossible. The chance of softer brexits was ditched in favour of going all in to stop brexit entirely, I think, which is high risk.
    I still think something like CU membership will emerge. Parliament will vote for it and TMay will shrug her shoulders and say 'I tried for something else but hey, Parliament is sovereign, what can I do'. Then... leadership challenge (she'll win); vote of no confidence? - I don't think so.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,570
    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    The NW11 Independence Party. Only they will scythe 788 Finchley Rd from the levers of the corrupt state.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,735
    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a ringing endorsement. Is Dacre's love affair with Theresa starting to cool?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    edited May 1
    Anazina said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    The NW11 Independence Party. Only they will scythe 788 Finchley Rd from the levers of the corrupt state.
    Great answer Anazina! I wish I had the choice! Fortunately that address got shut down in a panic at the end of February last year. And they're still trying to rent out the defunct 3 storey building for £70k a year. It takes a heart of stone not to laugh at the local estate agents (who themselves were formed out of the address) who are still trying to shift that place. Just google that address and you'll see why nobody wants to touch it with a barge pole.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,693
    nunuone said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is anyone surprised that he is a bully?
    Short man syndrome...Say Bollocks to Brexit Bercow.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Seems like if he really has behaved in such a way there will soon be plenty of others to corroborate it, since if you behave that way with one, you probably do with others. If he has gone on angry, foul mouthed tirades and the like, but is denying it because he doesn't think that counted as bullying, then he might be in trouble I suppose.
    The 'bullied' man seems like a wimp. If anyone else did have issues with the Speaker I hope self respect would prevent him making it public. The 'bullied. man was over 60 for heavens sake. Can anyone look after themselves anymore?
    Age does not mean people cannot be bullied. And that people can look after themselves is a reason to suggest they can handle the bullying, not that the bully should not be censured for being a bully. There is no reason for a person in a position of political or managerial authority to be a bullying arsehole. Tough? Sure. Even ruthless? Perhaps a bit. They don't need to be friendly. But Bully? No.

    Now, I don't think from that guy's words that the Speaker's actions necessarily rose to the level of bullying. Perception can be an important factor depending on if a subjective or objective test is being applied (and so would depend, I think, on what the Code MPs are supposed to operate under says about such an expectation to not bully, if one even exists - it does not in many councils anymore, deliberately). An example I've seen is:

    Bullying may be defined as offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting or humiliating
    behaviour by an individual or group of individuals, based on abuse or misuse of
    power or authority, which attempts to undermine an individual or group. Conduct is
    unlikely to be considered as bullying when it is an isolated incident of a minor nature,
    or when the behaviour by both the complainant and the member contributed equally
    to the breakdown in relations.

    An objective test is applied in determining whether conduct amounts to bullying or
    intimidation; in other words the conduct will be looked at through the eyes of a
    notional reasonable member of the public with knowledge of all the facts, and who
    looks at the conduct objectively


    So I don't know if Bercow is a bully based on this account. It does seem notable to me that someone who worked so closely with him was willing to say so though. In my limited experience PAs, secretaries and assistants, people who work closely with those in authority, they are often fiercely loyal because they have been well treated, even when the person they advised/worked for has a poor reputation among others.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,693
    edited May 1
    Sinclair reveals he was paid almost £90,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement following the bullying claims:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323

    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    She's screwed. This was one reason why she needed a large majority, so she could in fact compromise more down the line.

    It's a high stakes game I think - I don't see how the government can propose its CU idea formally without being sunk by its own internal divisions, but as you say parliament doesn't look like it will pass anything else. So the compromise option is off the table due to the indecisive 2017 vote, and it'll be a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Parliament doesn't want either, but if no government can pass any options, hard Brexit is still more likely than no Brexit, though the latter is not impossible. The chance of softer brexits was ditched in favour of going all in to stop brexit entirely, I think, which is high risk.
    I still think something like CU membership will emerge. Parliament will vote for it and TMay will shrug her shoulders and say 'I tried for something else but hey, Parliament is sovereign, what can I do'. Then... leadership challenge (she'll win); vote of no confidence? - I don't think so.
    I think there is a not inconsiderable chance they might. We might leave and rejoin the EU, decades down the line. But if we stay, or are half in (as some will see it) then we probably won't ever get the opportunity to leave 'properly' again. Why should those who feel strongly about that not bring down the government over it?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,798

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Fink on the vote last night. Sensible Brexiteers should take note. The first rule of politics is be able to count.

    In politics you have to assemble a majority where and when you need it. Shouting at people who fail to provide it may be cathartic, but beyond that it doesn’t get you anywhere. Better instead to calmly contemplate the parliamentary maths. Not the maths as you wish them to be, but the maths as they are.

    The Lords you can put to one side. The Lords won’t stop Brexit and will ultimately comply with the decision of MPs. So what matters is the maths in the Commons. And here the government simply doesn’t have the support to drive through the sort of Brexit that the most vocal leavers want.

    Some sort of compromise on customs arrangements will be necessary, as will sufficient compromises to get the EU to agree a deal. The Commons will not sign off on a no-deal Brexit. It’s fine to be angry about that if you wish and to argue that it defies the wishes of the voters (although, as it happens, I don’t think voters expressed a view on future customs arrangements). It’s fine, but pointless. Being cross doesn’t change the position.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexiteers-defining-battle-will-be-with-mps-zbmhw8l5z

    There have been two votes on the customs union already.

    The Govt have won both.

    Apart from the pitch (and frequency) of some people's whining, what has changed?
    I don't know, but you're right that the whining from the likes of Hannan, JRM, Jenkin, Fysh and IDS has reached fever pitch.
    I do not agree with your love of all things EU but it is clear there is a coordinated move by the EU, some in the HOC and more in the HOL to prevent us cutting our ties with the EU and the parliamentary maths looks like they will get their way

    But the consequences could be very nasty as 17 million voters feel betrayed
    Nasty in what way? We will leave the EU, which is what the 17 million voted for. Beyond that, it was never clear.
    If we still come under the ECJ, pay into the EU, and the EU do our trade deals for us, it will get nasty
    And there's me thinking control of immigration was the main reason people voted Leave!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,570

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a ringing endorsement. Is Dacre's love affair with Theresa starting to cool?
    The Mail is just laughable nowadays, I often wonder if Dacre is pursuing some obscure world record for most words on a front page.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,477
    Good evening. Nice to see this topic being covered, which I mentioned yesterday.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,194
    hunchman said:

    IanB2 said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You find out a bit about the candidates and vote for the best most hard working one(s).
    I've been trying to do that, but given its a safe Tory ward all we've had is a Tory leaflet, so that doesn't say a lot for the efforts of the others! I simply cannot in my right mind vote Tory these days given everything I know about their corruption historically based on 'that road' in the borough of Barnet.

    I will still go to the polling station even if I end up spoiling my ballot paper though, as I believe that is better than just wimping out and not turning up at all - that in my book is at least some mark of respect to the Suffragettes. And I'll put something pretty hard hitting about the corruption for everyone to see if I do indeed spoil my ballot paper.
    I once spoiled my ballot and regretted it afterwards. I would rather vote for a third party alternative.

    In the council elections, I think the manifestos are interesting. In our case, the tories have never published a manifesto, just traded on pledges to empty the bins and hopping on opportunistically to local campaigns.

    By contrast, the local labour party has always prepared a detailed manifesto explaining what they want to do and how it will be funded. Leaving aside ideological/party political concerns, they come across as quite good ideas. I've voted labour in the past on that basis alone.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,798
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    She's screwed. This was one reason why she needed a large majority, so she could in fact compromise more down the line.

    It's a high stakes game I think - I don't see how the government can propose its CU idea formally without being sunk by its own internal divisions, but as you say parliament doesn't look like it will pass anything else. So the compromise option is off the table due to the indecisive 2017 vote, and it'll be a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Parliament doesn't want either, but if no government can pass any options, hard Brexit is still more likely than no Brexit, though the latter is not impossible. The chance of softer brexits was ditched in favour of going all in to stop brexit entirely, I think, which is high risk.
    I still think something like CU membership will emerge. Parliament will vote for it and TMay will shrug her shoulders and say 'I tried for something else but hey, Parliament is sovereign, what can I do'. Then... leadership challenge (she'll win); vote of no confidence? - I don't think so.
    I think there is a not inconsiderable chance they might. We might leave and rejoin the EU, decades down the line. But if we stay, or are half in (as some will see it) then we probably won't ever get the opportunity to leave 'properly' again. Why should those who feel strongly about that not bring down the government over it?
    Beacuse all that would achieve is a Labour government... pursuing a soft CU Brexit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    Interesting that a BBC story states 'Senior Brexiteers' send ultimatum to PM. Do the BBC used Brexiteer interchangeably with Brexiter, or like me do they use it to refer to the more extreme Brexit supporters?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,535
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Seems like if he really has behaved in such a way there will soon be plenty of others to corroborate it, since if you behave that way with one, you probably do with others. If he has gone on angry, foul mouthed tirades and the like, but is denying it because he doesn't think that counted as bullying, then he might be in trouble I suppose.
    The 'bullied' man seems like a wimp. If anyone else did have issues with the Speaker I hope self respect would prevent him making it public. The 'bullied. man was over 60 for heavens sake. Can anyone look after themselves anymore?
    Age does not mean people cannot be bullied. And that people can look after themselves is a reason to suggest they can handle the bullying, not that the bully should not be censured for being a bully. There is no reason for a person in a position of political or managerial authority to be a bullying arsehole. Tough? Sure. Even ruthless? Perhaps a bit. They don't need to be friendly. But Bully? No.

    Now, I don't think from that guy's words that the Speaker's actions necessarily rose to the level of bullying. Perception can be an important factor depending on if a subjective or objective test is being applied (and so would depend, I think, on what the Code MPs are supposed to operate under says about such an expectation to not bully, if one even exists - it does not in many councils anymore, deliberately). An example I've seen is:

    Bullying may be defined as offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting or humiliating
    behaviour by an individual or group of individuals, based on abuse or misuse of
    power or authority, which attempts to undermine an individual or group. Conduct is
    unlikely to be considered as bullying when it is an isolated incident of a minor nature,
    or when the behaviour by both the complainant and the member contributed equally
    to the breakdown in relations.

    An objective test is applied in determining whether conduct amounts to bullying or
    intimidation; in other words the conduct will be looked at through the eyes of a
    notional reasonable member of the public with knowledge of all the facts, and who
    looks at the conduct objectively


    So I don't know if Bercow is a bully based on this account. It does seem notable to me that someone who worked so closely with him was willing to say so though. In my limited experience PAs, secretaries and assistants, people who work closely with those in authority, they are often fiercely loyal because they have been well treated, even when the person they advised/worked for has a poor reputation among others.
    Great post.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    Do the hard Brexiteers not realise how damaging such an option will be for those they claim to care about?

    Especially if followed by PM Corbyn?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,729
    kle4 said:

    Interesting that a BBC story states 'Senior Brexiteers' send ultimatum to PM. Do the BBC used Brexiteer interchangeably with Brexiter, or like me do they use it to refer to the more extreme Brexit supporters?

    I've not seen them use Brexiter. It hasn't captured the linguistic zeitgeist in the way that Brexiteer has.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,570

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Fink on the vote last night. Sensible Brexiteers should take note. The first rule of politics is be able to count.

    In politics you have to assemble a majority where and when you need it. Shouting at people who fail to provide it may be cathartic, but beyond that it doesn’t get you anywhere. Better instead to calmly contemplate the parliamentary maths. Not the maths as you wish them to be, but the maths as they are.

    The Lords you can put to one side. The Lords won’t stop Brexit and will ultimately comply with the decision of MPs. So what matters is the maths in the Commons. And here the government simply doesn’t have the support to drive through the sort of Brexit that the most vocal leavers want.

    Some sort of compromise on customs arrangements will be necessary, as will sufficient compromises to get the EU to agree a deal. The Commons will not sign off on a no-deal Brexit. It’s fine to be angry about that if you wish and to argue that it defies the wishes of the voters (although, as it happens, I don’t think voters expressed a view on future customs arrangements). It’s fine, but pointless. Being cross doesn’t change the position.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexiteers-defining-battle-will-be-with-mps-zbmhw8l5z

    There have been two votes on the customs union already.

    The Govt have won both.

    Apart from the pitch (and frequency) of some people's whining, what has changed?
    I don't know, but you're right that the whining from the likes of Hannan, JRM, Jenkin, Fysh and IDS has reached fever pitch.
    I do not agree with your love of all things EU but it is clear there is a coordinated move by the EU, some in the HOC and more in the HOL to prevent us cutting our ties with the EU and the parliamentary maths looks like they will get their way

    But the consequences could be very nasty as 17 million voters feel betrayed
    Nasty in what way? We will leave the EU, which is what the 17 million voted for. Beyond that, it was never clear.
    If we still come under the ECJ, pay into the EU, and the EU do our trade deals for us, it will get nasty
    And there's me thinking control of immigration was the main reason people voted Leave!
    No it was global trade deals - I found that out on PB.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,535
    Anazina said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a ringing endorsement. Is Dacre's love affair with Theresa starting to cool?
    The Mail is just laughable nowadays, I often wonder if Dacre is pursuing some obscure world record for most words on a front page.
    A lot of what James O’Brien says about the Mail and Dacre is so true.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,729
    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Seems like if he really has behaved in such a way there will soon be plenty of others to corroborate it, since if you behave that way with one, you probably do with others. If he has gone on angry, foul mouthed tirades and the like, but is denying it because he doesn't think that counted as bullying, then he might be in trouble I suppose.
    ...The 'bullied. man was over 60 for heavens sake. Can anyone look after themselves anymore?
    Yep, the 'Damus has spoken. Bercow must be toast.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    edited May 1

    Beacuse all that would achieve is a Labour government... pursuing a soft CU Brexit.

    Someone (I forget who) stated on here the other day that they would vote Corbyn if May and co backslid on this issue, even though Labour would pursue such a Brexit. They will not be alone. If the government won't deliver on the most important policy in decades, as they see it, why not take it down?

    Is a Corbyn government worse than being stuck, possibly forever, with a terrible settlement from Brexit? Some, perhaps most, even of the Brexiteers, will say it is not. But some might consider that a Corbyn government will last maybe 5-10 years, even popular governments rarely go beyond that. Is the damage he could do, constrained by his MPs as any government is, so bad?

    We have to consider it from the viewpoint of the most extreme voices. The question is are there enough of them.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    She's screwed. This was one reason why she needed a large majority, so she could in fact compromise more down the line.

    It's a high stakes game I think - I don't see how the government can propose its CU idea formally without being sunk by its own internal divisions, but as you say parliament doesn't look like it will pass anything else. So the compromise option is off the table due to the indecisive 2017 vote, and it'll be a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Parliament doesn't want either, but if no government can pass any options, hard Brexit is still more likely than no Brexit, though the latter is not impossible. The chance of softer brexits was ditched in favour of going all in to stop brexit entirely, I think, which is high risk.
    I still think something like CU membership will emerge. Parliament will vote for it and TMay will shrug her shoulders and say 'I tried for something else but hey, Parliament is sovereign, what can I do'. Then... leadership challenge (she'll win); vote of no confidence? - I don't think so.
    I think there is a not inconsiderable chance they might. We might leave and rejoin the EU, decades down the line. But if we stay, or are half in (as some will see it) then we probably won't ever get the opportunity to leave 'properly' again. Why should those who feel strongly about that not bring down the government over it?
    Beacuse all that would achieve is a Labour government... pursuing a soft CU Brexit.
    I doubt Labour would pursue a soft Brexit. A hard Brexit would give it much more freedom.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    She's screwed. This was one reason why she needed a large majority, so she could in fact compromise more down the line.

    It's a high stakes game I think - I don't see how the government can propose its CU idea formally without being sunk by its own internal divisions, but as you say parliament doesn't look like it will pass anything else. So the compromise option is off the table due to the indecisive 2017 vote, and it'll be a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Parliament doesn't want either, but if no government can pass any options, hard Brexit is still more likely than no Brexit, though the latter is not impossible. The chance of softer brexits was ditched in favour of going all in to stop brexit entirely, I think, which is high risk.
    I still think something like CU membership will emerge. Parliament will vote for it and TMay will shrug her shoulders and say 'I tried for something else but hey, Parliament is sovereign, what can I do'. Then... leadership challenge (she'll win); vote of no confidence? - I don't think so.
    I think there is a not inconsiderable chance they might. We might leave and rejoin the EU, decades down the line. But if we stay, or are half in (as some will see it) then we probably won't ever get the opportunity to leave 'properly' again. Why should those who feel strongly about that not bring down the government over it?
    Beacuse all that would achieve is a Labour government... pursuing a soft CU Brexit.
    I doubt Labour would pursue a soft Brexit. A hard Brexit would give it much more freedom.
    They seem to me to be tiptoeing toward a policy of Remain, they are just moving glacially.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,729
    Cyclefree said:

    Do the hard Brexiteers not realise how damaging such an option will be for those they claim to care about?

    Especially if followed by PM Corbyn?

    There never has been a hard Brexit since the nonsense about a cliff edge was put to bed (i.e. last December); just Brexit, or fudge.

    Fudge won't help anyone in the long run.

    That said, there is no reason why we can't have an extension of the transition for customs purposes - much as we did on entering the EEC.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,570

    Anazina said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a ringing endorsement. Is Dacre's love affair with Theresa starting to cool?
    The Mail is just laughable nowadays, I often wonder if Dacre is pursuing some obscure world record for most words on a front page.
    A lot of what James O’Brien says about the Mail and Dacre is so true.
    I don’t listen to LBC - what does O’Brien say?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 141
    kle4 said:

    Someone (I forget who) stated on here the other day that they would vote Corbyn if May and co backslid on this issue, even though Labour would pursue such a Brexit. They will not be alone. If the government won't deliver on the most important policy in decades, as they see it, why not take it down?

    Is a Corbyn government worse than being stuck, possibly forever, with a terrible settlement from Brexit? Some, perhaps most, even of the Brexiteers, will say it is not. But some might consider that a Corbyn government will last maybe 5-10 years, even popular governments rarely go beyond that. Is the damage he could do, constrained by his MPs as any government is, so bad?

    We have to consider it from the viewpoint of the most extreme voices. The question is are there enough of them.

    "Is the damage he could do, constrained by his MPs as any government is, so bad?"

    Yes, it is. Quite a lot worse actually.....

  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    nielh said:

    hunchman said:

    IanB2 said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You find out a bit about the candidates and vote for the best most hard working one(s).
    I've been trying to do that, but given its a safe Tory ward all we've had is a Tory leaflet, so that doesn't say a lot for the efforts of the others! I simply cannot in my right mind vote Tory these days given everything I know about their corruption historically based on 'that road' in the borough of Barnet.

    I will still go to the polling station even if I end up spoiling my ballot paper though, as I believe that is better than just wimping out and not turning up at all - that in my book is at least some mark of respect to the Suffragettes. And I'll put something pretty hard hitting about the corruption for everyone to see if I do indeed spoil my ballot paper.
    I once spoiled my ballot and regretted it afterwards. I would rather vote for a third party alternative.

    In the council elections, I think the manifestos are interesting. In our case, the tories have never published a manifesto, just traded on pledges to empty the bins and hopping on opportunistically to local campaigns.

    By contrast, the local labour party has always prepared a detailed manifesto explaining what they want to do and how it will be funded. Leaving aside ideological/party political concerns, they come across as quite good ideas. I've voted labour in the past on that basis alone.

    On one level given Corbyn's noises on Skripal and Syria, I did consider voting Labour. But there's no way I could support their wider agenda and all the ridiculous anti-Semitic nonsense.

    I do like Jeremy's brother Piers though, and do subscribe to some of his long range weather forecasts on weatheraction.com which are usually on the money around 70-75% of the time.

    Which sort of leaves the Lib Dems, but I have enough dirt of them including Vince to last a lifetime. The tradtional Liberal party I could easily vote for, what a sad decline for them into irrelevance with their EU-philia. Once the EU has bitten the dust, I could see a party based on the traditional Liberal party doing quite well in future.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323

    kle4 said:

    Someone (I forget who) stated on here the other day that they would vote Corbyn if May and co backslid on this issue, even though Labour would pursue such a Brexit. They will not be alone. If the government won't deliver on the most important policy in decades, as they see it, why not take it down?

    Is a Corbyn government worse than being stuck, possibly forever, with a terrible settlement from Brexit? Some, perhaps most, even of the Brexiteers, will say it is not. But some might consider that a Corbyn government will last maybe 5-10 years, even popular governments rarely go beyond that. Is the damage he could do, constrained by his MPs as any government is, so bad?

    We have to consider it from the viewpoint of the most extreme voices. The question is are there enough of them.

    "Is the damage he could do, constrained by his MPs as any government is, so bad?"

    Yes, it is. Quite a lot worse actually.....

    I think so too. But how many Tory MPs are so passionate about Brexit that they consider it, and the death of their careers, to be worth the risk to force May to either back their choice, or fall?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    kle4 said:

    Someone (I forget who) stated on here the other day that they would vote Corbyn if May and co backslid on this issue, even though Labour would pursue such a Brexit. They will not be alone. If the government won't deliver on the most important policy in decades, as they see it, why not take it down?

    Is a Corbyn government worse than being stuck, possibly forever, with a terrible settlement from Brexit? Some, perhaps most, even of the Brexiteers, will say it is not. But some might consider that a Corbyn government will last maybe 5-10 years, even popular governments rarely go beyond that. Is the damage he could do, constrained by his MPs as any government is, so bad?

    We have to consider it from the viewpoint of the most extreme voices. The question is are there enough of them.
    Why would you think Corbyn would be constrained by his MPs? He’s successfully ignored them so far and if he became PM I expect they’d fall into line.

    I do think a Corbyn government managing Brexit and with its own far left agenda could do a considerable amount of damage which would blight the opportunities for the next generation - my children’s generation.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 1,297
    edited May 1
    hunchman said:

    IanB2 said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You find out a bit about the candidates and vote for the best most hard working one(s).
    I've been trying to do that, but given its a safe Tory ward all we've had is a Tory leaflet, so that doesn't say a lot for the efforts of the others! I simply cannot in my right mind vote Tory these days given everything I know about their corruption historically based on 'that road' in the borough of Barnet.

    I will still go to the polling station even if I end up spoiling my ballot paper though, as I believe that is better than just wimping out and not turning up at all - that in my book is at least some mark of respect to the Suffragettes. And I'll put something pretty hard hitting about the corruption for everyone to see if I do indeed spoil my ballot paper.
    I'm the Lib Dem paper candidate for a very safe Tory ward. I've not delivered any leaflets there for the simple reason that it makes more sense to direct my efforts towards helping those candidates in my area who have a chance of winning. So no, you won't have a leaflet from us because your vote, frankly, is of little use to us.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,477
    rcs1000 said:

    Could Sutton be a surprise LibDem loss?

    1. It voted Leave* (unlike Richmond or Kingston)
    2. 2014 was an exceptional year for the LDs in Sutton, where they gained seats
    3. UKIP stood and had an impact in the Borough
    4. The council makeup understates how close it is, with a lot of split wards, and some very marginal LDs over Cons
    5. The LDs are polling no better than 2014, while the Conservatives are well up
    6. There appear to be local factors which may weigh against the LDs

    If anybody wants to back the LDs at 1-4 (better than Shadsy's 1-5), I'll take small bets.

    * I think. Certainly Burstow's seat voted Leave, and that's most of the Borough

    I intend to place a few small bets on the following:

    Lab gain Westminster
    Con gain Sutton
    Kingston goes to NOC
    All other councils in London staying the same as before
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    edited May 1
    Anazina said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    The NW11 Independence Party. Only they will scythe 788 Finchley Rd from the levers of the corrupt state.
    On another note Anazina, I raised a job number 788 at work today, and am leaving that employer a fortnight on Friday. I said in an email that I need to raise the job number 790 as well, one of my work colleagues needs to oblige by raising job 789 in the meantime!
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 470
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    She's screwed. This was one reason why she needed a large majority, so she could in fact compromise more down the line.

    It's a high stakes game I think - I don't see how the government can propose its CU idea formally without being sunk by its own internal divisions, but as you say parliament doesn't look like it will pass anything else. So the compromise option is off the table due to the indecisive 2017 vote, and it'll be a hard Brexit or no Brexit. Parliament doesn't want either, but if no government can pass any options, hard Brexit is still more likely than no Brexit, though the latter is not impossible. The chance of softer brexits was ditched in favour of going all in to stop brexit entirely, I think, which is high risk.
    I still think something like CU membership will emerge. Parliament will vote for it and TMay will shrug her shoulders and say 'I tried for something else but hey, Parliament is sovereign, what can I do'. Then... leadership challenge (she'll win); vote of no confidence? - I don't think so.
    I think there is a not inconsiderable chance they might. We might leave and rejoin the EU, decades down the line. But if we stay, or are half in (as some will see it) then we probably won't ever get the opportunity to leave 'properly' again. Why should those who feel strongly about that not bring down the government over it?
    Beacuse all that would achieve is a Labour government... pursuing a soft CU Brexit.
    I doubt Labour would pursue a soft Brexit. A hard Brexit would give it much more freedom.
    They seem to me to be tiptoeing toward a policy of Remain, they are just moving glacially.
    No. Most of their core vote will vote Labour because they always have done. By making enough "A Customs Union" noises they hope to attract enough Lib Dems and left-leaning Remain Tories to get over the line. Then they'll do whatever they want and wont give a stuff what they said in the run up to election day.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 12,072
    Scott_P said:
    I don't think Speaker B's tenure is going to end well...
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,270
    I'm awaiting the WV Senate Republican debate, which will start in 5 minutes.

    Regarding brexit, I'm either losing my mind or losing interest, and I'm not sure which.

    As I understand it, the UK is resigning from a club. In this case generally the club decides what benefits or payment arrangements will continue, and the resigning member doesn't get much say. How is brexit that much different?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,570
    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Seems like if he really has behaved in such a way there will soon be plenty of others to corroborate it, since if you behave that way with one, you probably do with others. If he has gone on angry, foul mouthed tirades and the like, but is denying it because he doesn't think that counted as bullying, then he might be in trouble I suppose.
    ...The 'bullied. man was over 60 for heavens sake. Can anyone look after themselves anymore?
    Yep, the 'Damus has spoken. Bercow must be toast.
    Meanwhile, you are famed for your dispassionate, non-partisan analysis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,183
    This chart confirms my view that while last year it was May who suffered from over confidence not based on a realistic assessment of her position this year it is Corbyn who is in a similar position
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,183
    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Someone (I forget who) stated on here the other day that they would vote Corbyn if May and co backslid on this issue, even though Labour would pursue such a Brexit. They will not be alone. If the government won't deliver on the most important policy in decades, as they see it, why not take it down?

    Is a Corbyn government worse than being stuck, possibly forever, with a terrible settlement from Brexit? Some, perhaps most, even of the Brexiteers, will say it is not. But some might consider that a Corbyn government will last maybe 5-10 years, even popular governments rarely go beyond that. Is the damage he could do, constrained by his MPs as any government is, so bad?

    We have to consider it from the viewpoint of the most extreme voices. The question is are there enough of them.
    Why would you think Corbyn would be constrained by his MPs? He’s successfully ignored them so far and if he became PM I expect they’d fall into line.

    I do think a Corbyn government managing Brexit and with its own far left agenda could do a considerable amount of damage which would blight the opportunities for the next generation - my children’s generation.
    I agree with you, and don't want him to get the chance, but the reason I think he would be constrained somewhat is because of political reality. Have May's rebels fallen into line? Most of the time, but they don't always, and their mere presence in a house with a slim majority (only through confidence and supply) has an impact on what the government even tries to do.

    So it would be with Corbyn - most would go his way most of the time (on domestic issues there seems no problems at all from the PLP, only on foreign affairs and anti-semitism) but government is more difficult than opposition, and he would need to make hard choices, and compromises, he would need to carry his MPs with him and they would know that the impact of their rebelling would be more significant, as government defeats are more significant than some of the opposition backing the government. Therefore they would need to be listened to more, because the cost to him of their not doing so would be higher.

    I don't know how much it would constrain him, but governments cannot ride roughshod over their MPs unless they have stonking great majorities, and that is improbable.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,477
    Looks like Sajid Javid is about to overtake Jeremy Hunt in the betting stakes to be 5th in line to be next PM.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125575094
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    edited May 1
    Tim_B said:

    I'm awaiting the WV Senate Republican debate, which will start in 5 minutes.

    Regarding brexit, I'm either losing my mind or losing interest, and I'm not sure which.

    As I understand it, the UK is resigning from a club. In this case generally the club decides what benefits or payment arrangements will continue, and the resigning member doesn't get much say. How is brexit that much different?

    Not that much, unfortunately.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    hunchman said:

    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
    I see the constitution of the Justice and anti-corruption party name drops Labour twice in the first 5 paragraphs. Not fans?
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 1,297
    hunchman said:

    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
    You could stand yourself next time. No deposit needed, just 10 people from the ward in question to sign your nomination form (at least, that's how it is in my neck of the woods).
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    kle4 said:

    hunchman said:

    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
    I see the constitution of the Justice and anti-corruption party name drops Labour twice in the first 5 paragraphs. Not fans?
    Where are you looking? The following link gives a good description of the local misdeeds of the Immigration Minister:

    http://www.jacparty.org.uk/
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    edited May 1

    hunchman said:

    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
    You could stand yourself next time. No deposit needed, just 10 people from the ward in question to sign your nomination form (at least, that's how it is in my neck of the woods).
    Good point - I'm moving to a new constituency by the end of May with my job, so wouldn't have been very appropriate for me to stand in the ward here in Southampton this time! I've got one last blockbuster email to send to Caroline Nokes before I leave though, which explains exactly why she has behaved in the way she has towards me over the past few years when raising all the corruption as evidenced by Companies House records.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    hunchman said:

    kle4 said:

    hunchman said:

    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
    I see the constitution of the Justice and anti-corruption party name drops Labour twice in the first 5 paragraphs. Not fans?
    Where are you looking? The following link gives a good description of the local misdeeds of the Immigration Minister:

    http://www.jacparty.org.uk/
    That's where I was looking

    We recognise that the current new Labour leadership and other major political parties have fully embraced the desire to control all aspects of public life by the creation of a plethora of laws rules and regulations in an effort to appear to be effective government. The impact of these actions is to confuse the public whilst individuals can improperly or immorally increase their position and wealth.

    We also believe that regulatory bodies such as the police, HMRC, Court Services, Audit Commission, Panning Inspectorate and Government Departments such as the Home Office, the secretariats for the Environment, Treasury and legal processes have shown total disregard for the laid down regulations. This is either due to the complexities of the law created by new Labour, or because they have no desire to confront prominent individuals. Within these bodies there is a desire to do nothing and take no responsibility for actions.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    kle4 said:

    hunchman said:

    kle4 said:

    hunchman said:

    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
    I see the constitution of the Justice and anti-corruption party name drops Labour twice in the first 5 paragraphs. Not fans?
    Where are you looking? The following link gives a good description of the local misdeeds of the Immigration Minister:

    http://www.jacparty.org.uk/
    That's where I was looking

    We recognise that the current new Labour leadership and other major political parties have fully embraced the desire to control all aspects of public life by the creation of a plethora of laws rules and regulations in an effort to appear to be effective government. The impact of these actions is to confuse the public whilst individuals can improperly or immorally increase their position and wealth.

    We also believe that regulatory bodies such as the police, HMRC, Court Services, Audit Commission, Panning Inspectorate and Government Departments such as the Home Office, the secretariats for the Environment, Treasury and legal processes have shown total disregard for the laid down regulations. This is either due to the complexities of the law created by new Labour, or because they have no desire to confront prominent individuals. Within these bodies there is a desire to do nothing and take no responsibility for actions.
    I see - well it's a pretty accurate description isn't it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,323
    hunchman said:

    kle4 said:

    hunchman said:

    kle4 said:

    hunchman said:

    HYUFD said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You sound like a UKIP voter so you write in Nigel Farage?
    I've got enough dirt on Nigel Farage through my investigations. At least I could vote for the Justice and Anti Corruption candidate standing last June in Romsey,,,,even though I was joined by just 270 other enlightened voters!
    I see the constitution of the Justice and anti-corruption party name drops Labour twice in the first 5 paragraphs. Not fans?
    Where are you looking? The following link gives a good description of the local misdeeds of the Immigration Minister:

    http://www.jacparty.org.uk/
    That's where I was looking

    We recognise that the current new Labour leadership and other major political parties have fully embraced the desire to control all aspects of public life by the creation of a plethora of laws rules and regulations in an effort to appear to be effective government. The impact of these actions is to confuse the public whilst individuals can improperly or immorally increase their position and wealth.

    We also believe that regulatory bodies such as the police, HMRC, Court Services, Audit Commission, Panning Inspectorate and Government Departments such as the Home Office, the secretariats for the Environment, Treasury and legal processes have shown total disregard for the laid down regulations. This is either due to the complexities of the law created by new Labour, or because they have no desire to confront prominent individuals. Within these bodies there is a desire to do nothing and take no responsibility for actions.
    I see - well it's a pretty accurate description isn't it?
    I think it sees a little too much malevolence than is realistic.

    Good night all.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,477
    edited May 1
    Given that no deposit is required for local election candidates it's notable how many contests this year are simple two party battles between Conservative and Labour. This is the full list:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FytLBiqVq7tYM_8xT0PwOzqvwGFq2Dfv2szd1KKZEMU/edit#
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Could Sutton be a surprise LibDem loss?

    1. It voted Leave* (unlike Richmond or Kingston)
    2. 2014 was an exceptional year for the LDs in Sutton, where they gained seats
    3. UKIP stood and had an impact in the Borough
    4. The council makeup understates how close it is, with a lot of split wards, and some very marginal LDs over Cons
    5. The LDs are polling no better than 2014, while the Conservatives are well up
    6. There appear to be local factors which may weigh against the LDs

    If anybody wants to back the LDs at 1-4 (better than Shadsy's 1-5), I'll take small bets.

    * I think. Certainly Burstow's seat voted Leave, and that's most of the Borough

    I intend to place a few small bets on the following:

    Lab gain Westminster
    Con gain Sutton
    Kingston goes to NOC
    All other councils in London staying the same as before
    I think Kingston will go LD.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,478
    nielh said:

    hunchman said:

    IanB2 said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You find out a bit about the candidates and vote for the best most hard working one(s).
    I've been trying to do that, but given its a safe Tory ward all we've had is a Tory leaflet, so that doesn't say a lot for the efforts of the others! I simply cannot in my right mind vote Tory these days given everything I know about their corruption historically based on 'that road' in the borough of Barnet.

    I will still go to the polling station even if I end up spoiling my ballot paper though, as I believe that is better than just wimping out and not turning up at all - that in my book is at least some mark of respect to the Suffragettes. And I'll put something pretty hard hitting about the corruption for everyone to see if I do indeed spoil my ballot paper.
    I once spoiled my ballot and regretted it afterwards. I would rather vote for a third party alternative.

    In the council elections, I think the manifestos are interesting. In our case, the tories have never published a manifesto, just traded on pledges to empty the bins and hopping on opportunistically to local campaigns.

    By contrast, the local labour party has always prepared a detailed manifesto explaining what they want to do and how it will be funded. Leaving aside ideological/party political concerns, they come across as quite good ideas. I've voted labour in the past on that basis alone.

    I had pondered voting Green rather than spoiling my ballot paper at the next election in protest at Labour 's selection of a candidate from an All Women Shortlist. However, I have decided to spoil my ballot paper on the basis that towards the end of an election count the candidates and agents are invited to inspect such ballot papers. I want them to read my comments -ie'I refuse to vote for a gender vetted candidate'.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Anazina said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Fink on the vote last night. Sensible Brexiteers should take note. The first rule of politics is be able to count.

    In politics you have to assemble a majority where and when you need it. Shouting at people who fail to provide it may be cathartic, but beyond that it doesn’t get you anywhere. Better instead to calmly contemplate the parliamentary maths. Not the maths as you wish them to be, but the maths as they are.

    The Lords you can put to one side. The Lords won’t stop Brexit and will ultimately comply with the decision of MPs. So what matters is the maths in the Commons. And here the government simply doesn’t have the support to drive through the sort of Brexit that the most vocal leavers want.

    Some sort of compromise on customs arrangements will be necessary, as will sufficient compromises to get the EU to agree a deal. The Commons will not sign off on a no-deal Brexit. It’s fine to be angry about that if you wish and to argue that it defies the wishes of the voters (although, as it happens, I don’t think voters expressed a view on future customs arrangements). It’s fine, but pointless. Being cross doesn’t change the position.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexiteers-defining-battle-will-be-with-mps-zbmhw8l5z

    There have been two votes on the customs union already.

    The Govt have won both.

    Apart from the pitch (and frequency) of some people's whining, what has changed?
    I don't know, but you're right that the whining from the likes of Hannan, JRM, Jenkin, Fysh and IDS has reached fever pitch.
    I do not agree with your love of all things EU but it is clear there is a coordinated move by the EU, some in the HOC and more in the HOL to prevent us cutting our ties with the EU and the parliamentary maths looks like they will get their way

    But the consequences could be very nasty as 17 million voters feel betrayed
    Nasty in what way? We will leave the EU, which is what the 17 million voted for. Beyond that, it was never clear.
    If we still come under the ECJ, pay into the EU, and the EU do our trade deals for us, it will get nasty
    And there's me thinking control of immigration was the main reason people voted Leave!
    No it was global trade deals - I found that out on PB.
    Did you not follow the almost continuous mage-debate on the Customs Union ?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898

    Sinclair reveals he was paid almost £90,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement following the bullying claims:

    Which does beg the question: why did he disclose? Is he going to give the money back?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,660
    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Could Sutton be a surprise LibDem loss?

    1. It voted Leave* (unlike Richmond or Kingston)
    2. 2014 was an exceptional year for the LDs in Sutton, where they gained seats
    3. UKIP stood and had an impact in the Borough
    4. The council makeup understates how close it is, with a lot of split wards, and some very marginal LDs over Cons
    5. The LDs are polling no better than 2014, while the Conservatives are well up
    6. There appear to be local factors which may weigh against the LDs

    If anybody wants to back the LDs at 1-4 (better than Shadsy's 1-5), I'll take small bets.

    * I think. Certainly Burstow's seat voted Leave, and that's most of the Borough

    I intend to place a few small bets on the following:

    Lab gain Westminster
    Con gain Sutton
    Kingston goes to NOC
    All other councils in London staying the same as before
    I'd be pretty surprised if the LDs don't take Richmond Upon Thames:

    - it's one of the most Remain-y seats in the country
    - the Conservative Council has not filled itself with glory
    - the LDs were 10,000 votes ahead if you add up the Twickenham and Richmond Park results from last year, and the most Conservative parts of Richmond Park are actually in the Kingston area
    - there will be a fairly large number of EU citizens able to register a protest vote

    Against that, Zac Goldsmith is not standing, which should boost the Conservative vote somewhat.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,693
    Disgraced Labour MP Keith Vaz faces fresh police probe over rent boys

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6189367/keith-vaz-cocaine-probe/
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 620
    We keep being told just a tiny fraction of Trump voters are racist, but this keeps happening for some reason.....
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/kfile-carl-higbie-says-comments-out-of-context/index.html
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,839
    nunuone said:
    Another poll backing up national polling evidence and the 2017 results to suggest Labour will have a strong but not dominant night. The Tories are surely long at 5/4 to hold Wandsworth? The swing won't be constant across London but the headline figures are barely half the swing Labour need to win it.
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 470
    viewcode said:

    Sinclair reveals he was paid almost £90,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement following the bullying claims:

    Which does beg the question: why did he disclose? Is he going to give the money back?
    I suspect in the current Me Too climate, he'll be praised for his honesty as alleged bullying shouldn't be hidden by NDAs. So, keep the money and get his revenge served cold.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Could Sutton be a surprise LibDem loss?

    1. It voted Leave* (unlike Richmond or Kingston)
    2. 2014 was an exceptional year for the LDs in Sutton, where they gained seats
    3. UKIP stood and had an impact in the Borough
    4. The council makeup understates how close it is, with a lot of split wards, and some very marginal LDs over Cons
    5. The LDs are polling no better than 2014, while the Conservatives are well up
    6. There appear to be local factors which may weigh against the LDs

    If anybody wants to back the LDs at 1-4 (better than Shadsy's 1-5), I'll take small bets.

    * I think. Certainly Burstow's seat voted Leave, and that's most of the Borough

    I intend to place a few small bets on the following:

    Lab gain Westminster
    Con gain Sutton
    Kingston goes to NOC
    All other councils in London staying the same as before
    I'd be pretty surprised if the LDs don't take Richmond Upon Thames:

    - it's one of the most Remain-y seats in the country
    - the Conservative Council has not filled itself with glory
    - the LDs were 10,000 votes ahead if you add up the Twickenham and Richmond Park results from last year, and the most Conservative parts of Richmond Park are actually in the Kingston area
    - there will be a fairly large number of EU citizens able to register a protest vote

    Against that, Zac Goldsmith is not standing, which should boost the Conservative vote somewhat.
    How many of the EU citizens actually vote ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,660
    surby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Could Sutton be a surprise LibDem loss?

    1. It voted Leave* (unlike Richmond or Kingston)
    2. 2014 was an exceptional year for the LDs in Sutton, where they gained seats
    3. UKIP stood and had an impact in the Borough
    4. The council makeup understates how close it is, with a lot of split wards, and some very marginal LDs over Cons
    5. The LDs are polling no better than 2014, while the Conservatives are well up
    6. There appear to be local factors which may weigh against the LDs

    If anybody wants to back the LDs at 1-4 (better than Shadsy's 1-5), I'll take small bets.

    * I think. Certainly Burstow's seat voted Leave, and that's most of the Borough

    I intend to place a few small bets on the following:

    Lab gain Westminster
    Con gain Sutton
    Kingston goes to NOC
    All other councils in London staying the same as before
    I'd be pretty surprised if the LDs don't take Richmond Upon Thames:

    - it's one of the most Remain-y seats in the country
    - the Conservative Council has not filled itself with glory
    - the LDs were 10,000 votes ahead if you add up the Twickenham and Richmond Park results from last year, and the most Conservative parts of Richmond Park are actually in the Kingston area
    - there will be a fairly large number of EU citizens able to register a protest vote

    Against that, Zac Goldsmith is not standing, which should boost the Conservative vote somewhat.
    How many of the EU citizens actually vote ?
    Historically, almost none. The question is whether a portion will this time around. Barnesian, who I believe is a LibDem activist in Barnes, reckons they could get 200 EU votes on Thursday - which is a meaningful amount in a ward where the winner will probably end up on 1,400 votes.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,339

    Disgraced Labour MP Keith Vaz faces fresh police probe over rent boys

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6189367/keith-vaz-cocaine-probe/

    I wonder if they will take the same view as they did with Sarah Olney - where all of a sudden her election expenditure fraud wasn't deemed to be in the public interest to actually bring charges even though they believed her to be guilty?

    Vaz deserves to have his career ripped from him and trampled into the dirt. He really deserves all that is coming to him.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898

    viewcode said:

    Sinclair reveals he was paid almost £90,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement following the bullying claims:

    Which does beg the question: why did he disclose? Is he going to give the money back?
    I suspect in the current Me Too climate, he'll be praised for his honesty as alleged bullying shouldn't be hidden by NDAs. So, keep the money and get his revenge served cold.
    I can't help thinking there's something wrong there. I accept bullying is bad but signing a contract without intending to fulfill the terms is also bad.
  • LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457
    Foxy said:

    hunchman said:

    Mortimer said:

    And tonight labour want to up the anti against TM on Windrush but all they are doing is confirming in voters eyes their opposition to controlling illegal immigration and immigration in general

    Whisper it quietly, but I suspect @Danny555 is bang on when he suggests that the Windrush focus isn't going to help Labour in the Locals....
    Agreed - usually Tories come off best when the focus is on immigration as it has been over the past week, even with the wretched former Home Secretary gone.
    I think that you may be right in parts of the country. Less so in others. The divide showed well in the Channel 4 news piece with Chuka and Gale:

    What is slightly stunned by an interview? U what you Mooner?

    Chuck showing why he is not and will never be leader of the Labour Party. He does not have the communication skills. It’s stunned or its hardly stunning.

    He should step down at the next election and earn some proper money for his family. With communication skills as dire as his, he’s no player.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,477
    nunuone said:
    I wonder how many seats and councils Labour would win on a uniform 3.5% swing in London
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,660
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Sinclair reveals he was paid almost £90,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement following the bullying claims:

    Which does beg the question: why did he disclose? Is he going to give the money back?
    I suspect in the current Me Too climate, he'll be praised for his honesty as alleged bullying shouldn't be hidden by NDAs. So, keep the money and get his revenge served cold.
    I can't help thinking there's something wrong there. I accept bullying is bad but signing a contract without intending to fulfill the terms is also bad.
    Once, in the early days of what was then Betgenius Ltd, we entered into a contract with Microsoft.

    They basically had a boilerplate contract for all their suppliers, with a customised paragraph near the front that described the services to be provided.

    Anyway, our customised paragraph said something like "you will provide gambling and betting services for MSN, including a live feed of odds". (It was a little more detailed, but that was the gist.) And then, on page 16, there was a paragraph which said something like "you will not be involved in the gambling or betting industry in any way".

    We signed the contract. (The advice we got was that Microsoft had signed an essentially unenforceable contract, and the only people who would benefit from this were us.)
  • LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457
    On topic. Whose winning the key battle to down play expectations?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,477

    On topic. Whose winning the key battle to down play expectations?

    The general view seems to be that Labour are doing a bad job of expectations management in London.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    The Fink on the vote last night. Sensible Brexiteers should take note. The first rule of politics is be able to count.

    In politics you have to assemble a majority where and when you need it. Shouting at people who fail to provide it may be cathartic, but beyond that it doesn’t get you anywhere. Better instead to calmly contemplate the parliamentary maths. Not the maths as you wish them to be, but the maths as they are.

    The Lords you can put to one side. The Lords won’t stop Brexit and will ultimately comply with the decision of MPs. So what matters is the maths in the Commons. And here the government simply doesn’t have the support to drive through the sort of Brexit that the most vocal leavers want.

    Some sort of compromise on customs arrangements will be necessary, as will sufficient compromises to get the EU to agree a deal. The Commons will not sign off on a no-deal Brexit. It’s fine to be angry about that if you wish and to argue that it defies the wishes of the voters (although, as it happens, I don’t think voters expressed a view on future customs arrangements). It’s fine, but pointless. Being cross doesn’t change the position.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexiteers-defining-battle-will-be-with-mps-zbmhw8l5z

    There have been two votes on the customs union already.

    The Govt have won both.

    Apart from the pitch (and frequency) of some people's whining, what has changed?
    I don't know, but you're right that the whining from the likes of Hannan, JRM, Jenkin, Fysh and IDS has reached fever pitch.
    I do not agree with your love of all things EU but it is clear there is a coordinated move by the EU, some in the HOC and more in the HOL to prevent us cutting our ties with the EU and the parliamentary maths looks like they will get their way

    But the consequences could be very nasty as 17 million voters feel betrayed
    Nasty in what way? We will leave the EU, which is what the 17 million voted for. Beyond that, it was never clear.

    Leaving the CU was clearly stated as a consequence of Leave.

    So was £350m extra for the NHS and that's not going to happen either.

    Leaving the CU was the government's official position, as a consequence of Brexit. I do still have the leaflet they sent out to everyone.

    Can't find it myself:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,513
    Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.

    Arguably if the government negotiated remaining in the SM and CU they could say they've successfully mitigated the risk.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,339
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Sinclair reveals he was paid almost £90,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement following the bullying claims:

    Which does beg the question: why did he disclose? Is he going to give the money back?
    I suspect in the current Me Too climate, he'll be praised for his honesty as alleged bullying shouldn't be hidden by NDAs. So, keep the money and get his revenge served cold.
    I can't help thinking there's something wrong there. I accept bullying is bad but signing a contract without intending to fulfill the terms is also bad.
    The intention to abide by the terms of the severance package was clearly there at the time. But circumstances changed when he saw that others had suffered because he hadn't been able to speak out. If he had been able to have his complaint heard properly at the time, his successor may not have had to deal with the same behaviour.

    I can understand why he weighed up his obligations and came down on the side of protecting others.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283

    Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.

    Arguably if the government negotiated remaining in the SM and CU they could say they've successfully mitigated the risk.
    But that would not fulfil 'leaving the EU'......as you can't have 'full access to the Single Market' and not be in the EU.

    One from the archives....

    “It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

    “Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’, not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide.

    “At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.

    “So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say think again.


    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/900462/Brexit-news-UK-David-Cameron-Tony-Blair-European-Union-referendum-latest
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,660

    Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.

    Arguably if the government negotiated remaining in the SM and CU they could say they've successfully mitigated the risk.
    But that would not fulfil 'leaving the EU'......as you can't have 'full access to the Single Market' and not be in the EU.
    Doesn't Norway have full access to the Single Market, and yet is not in the EU?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283
    rcs1000 said:

    Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.

    Arguably if the government negotiated remaining in the SM and CU they could say they've successfully mitigated the risk.
    But that would not fulfil 'leaving the EU'......as you can't have 'full access to the Single Market' and not be in the EU.
    Doesn't Norway have full access to the Single Market, and yet is not in the EU?

    But in return for the economic benefits of access to the EU’s Single Market, non-EU countries – such as Norway – have had to accept the right of all EU citizens to live and work in their country.

    So clearly limiting 'Freedom of Movement' was an implied outcome of 'leaving the EU'.....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,513

    rcs1000 said:

    Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.

    Arguably if the government negotiated remaining in the SM and CU they could say they've successfully mitigated the risk.
    But that would not fulfil 'leaving the EU'......as you can't have 'full access to the Single Market' and not be in the EU.
    Doesn't Norway have full access to the Single Market, and yet is not in the EU?

    But in return for the economic benefits of access to the EU’s Single Market, non-EU countries – such as Norway – have had to accept the right of all EU citizens to live and work in their country.

    So clearly limiting 'Freedom of Movement' was an implied outcome of 'leaving the EU'.....
    Or it was implied that freedom of movement would have to be retained in order to keep the economic benefits.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283
    edited May 2
    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283
    Interesting comment from Andrew Hawkins, from the Express article:

    Andrew Hawkins, ComRes Chairman, said: “That the two main parties are polling neck and neck despite Theresa May’s considerable lead over Jeremy Corbyn on economic management points either to voters being prepared to support a party that they believe will them poorer, or at Election time they will instead opt for what they feel is the safer option.

    Theresa May has a substantial lead over Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of stewardship of the economy

    "The danger for Labour is not just that there is a discrepancy, it is the scale of it, including among young people whose support is vital if the Party is to stand a chance of winning an election."


    I make that two discrepancies - economy & leadership.....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,660

    rcs1000 said:

    Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.

    Arguably if the government negotiated remaining in the SM and CU they could say they've successfully mitigated the risk.
    But that would not fulfil 'leaving the EU'......as you can't have 'full access to the Single Market' and not be in the EU.
    Doesn't Norway have full access to the Single Market, and yet is not in the EU?

    But in return for the economic benefits of access to the EU’s Single Market, non-EU countries – such as Norway – have had to accept the right of all EU citizens to live and work in their country.

    So clearly limiting 'Freedom of Movement' was an implied outcome of 'leaving the EU'.....
    Oh, I'm not doubting that honouring the referendum requires greater controls on immigration, I'm just pointing out that EEA != EU.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,513

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Or Chris Grayling?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,660

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Or Chris Grayling?
    Distinct possibility.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283
    rcs1000 said:

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.
    First to Flounce Brexiteer?
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    edited May 2
    rcs1000 said:

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.


    No, the referendum result is the reason that the Customs Union is an issue. Plus the fact that both major parties were elected on a platform of leaving. And the fact that it makes no sense to remain in the CU unless you also remain in full alignment with the SM, which effectively negates the purpose of leaving anyway.

    The only people who push the CU issue are people who want to overturn the result of the referendum.

    But blame Fox if it makes you feel better.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,283
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,660

    rcs1000 said:

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.


    No, the referendum result is the reason that the Customs Union is an issue. Plus the fact that both major parties were elected on a platform of leaving. And the fact that it makes no sense to remain in the CU unless you also remain in full alignment with the SM, which effectively negates the purpose of leaving anyway.

    The only people who push the CU issue are people who want to overturn the result of the referendum.

    But blame Fox if it makes you feel better.
    When we leave the EU, we leave about 100 agreements the EU has.

    Dr Fox has stated publicly that he expects existing arrangements to be rolled over by those countries that have deals with the UK. This is deeply naive. And while some deals are vanilla, some have the ECJ as an arbiter, some have freedom of movement built in, and some rely on the EFTA Court for enforcement.

    We have been publicly slapped down by both the Swiss and the South Korean governments for not engaging with them over the roll over. Not the EU: the Swiss and the South Koreans.

    Dr Fox's priority is getting a US-UK trade deal. I'm an Atlanticist. I live in Los Angeles. I'd love a deep free trade deal between the UK and the US. But I also recognise that maintaining existing relationships is more important than a deal with the US that would require very substantial compromises - as far as accepting the suzrenity of US bases ISDS tribunals and requiring our IP laws to be kept in lock-step with the US.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,425
    edited May 2
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.


    No, the referendum result is the reason that the Customs Union is an issue. Plus the fact that both major parties were elected on a platform of leaving. And the fact that it makes no sense to remain in the CU unless you also remain in full alignment with the SM, which effectively negates the purpose of leaving anyway.

    The only people who push the CU issue are people who want to overturn the result of the referendum.

    But blame Fox if it makes you feel better.
    When we leave the EU, we leave about 100 agreements the EU has.

    Dr Fox has stated publicly that he expects existing arrangements to be rolled over by those countries that have deals with the UK. This is deeply naive. And while some deals are vanilla, some have the ECJ as an arbiter, some have freedom of movement built in, and some rely on the EFTA Court for enforcement.

    We have been publicly slapped down by both the Swiss and the South Korean governments for not engaging with them over the roll over. Not the EU: the Swiss and the South Koreans.

    Dr Fox's priority is getting a US-UK trade deal. I'm an Atlanticist. I live in Los Angeles. I'd love a deep free trade deal between the UK and the US. But I also recognise that maintaining existing relationships is more important than a deal with the US that would require very substantial compromises - as far as accepting the suzrenity of US bases ISDS tribunals and requiring our IP laws to be kept in lock-step with the US.

    On IP specifically, most US patent owners would undoubtedly prefer the UK/European regime to their own one. But that is a side issue. You are, of course, absolutely correct. The only trade deal the UK will get with the US is one the US dictates. The same applies to all other major trading nations, of course. Their fall back is the status quo. The UK, on the other hand, will be negotiating having already made it more expensive and time-consuming to trade with its biggest export market.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,425
    I nce had a seven bottle lunch with a top ranked City lawyer who departed the restaurant at 5.00 pm to do a series of calls with US clients. I was all over the place, but had managed to get her to sign a £20,000 sponsorship deal. She paid for the lunch, too. Lawyers do drink a shedload.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,477
    I thought people in the City are supposed to drink a lot less these days than they did in previous decades. They must have drunk an awful lot back then.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,747

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    My first indication today that the Customs Partnership idea was sunk was when I heard on waking that Hammond was supporting it. Kiss of death for most Brexit related ideas so far...

    The ERG won't have it, the press are against it, the people won't wear it. Guess that cabinet sub committee meeting will be short...
    And then what? Parliament won't support no deal or a hard Brexit, as TMay knows, hence the search for a CU in all but name.
    They only get to choose between what the government negotiated and no deal
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,747
    hunchman said:

    IanB2 said:

    hunchman said:

    I have a choice between Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green on Thursday. Who do you vote for if you're broadly centre right, detest the Tories for a) financial and moral corruption, b) foreign policy, detest the Lib Dems for their EU fanaticism, detest Labour for most things, not least socialism as a completely flawed ideology and detest the Greens for their man made climate change nonsense?

    You find out a bit about the candidates and vote for the best most hard working one(s).
    I've been trying to do that, but given its a safe Tory ward all we've had is a Tory leaflet, so that doesn't say a lot for the efforts of the others! I simply cannot in my right mind vote Tory these days given everything I know about their corruption historically based on 'that road' in the borough of Barnet.

    I will still go to the polling station even if I end up spoiling my ballot paper though, as I believe that is better than just wimping out and not turning up at all - that in my book is at least some mark of respect to the Suffragettes. And I'll put something pretty hard hitting about the corruption for everyone to see if I do indeed spoil my ballot paper.
    People pay more attention if you write in green ink
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,474
    AndyJS said:

    I thought people in the City are supposed to drink a lot less these days than they did in previous decades. They must have drunk an awful lot back then.

    In the 1980s I was interviewed after lunch by a chap in the City who was literally bouncing off the walls as he walked down the corridor.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,474

    nunuone said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is anyone surprised that he is a bully?
    Short man syndrome...Say Bollocks to Brexit Bercow.
    Shortist.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,293
    edited May 2

    AndyJS said:

    I thought people in the City are supposed to drink a lot less these days than they did in previous decades. They must have drunk an awful lot back then.

    In the 1980s I was interviewed after lunch by a chap in the City who was literally bouncing off the walls as he walked down the corridor.
    Rich people get away with things. Anyone else would be fired. Pinstripe rab c nesbit need help, but minimum alcohol pricing won't make a difference .
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,238

    nunuone said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is anyone surprised that he is a bully?
    Short man syndrome...Say Bollocks to Brexit Bercow.
    Shortist.
    I think it's meant to be spelt shortest. ;)
This discussion has been closed.