I get the sense that Corbyn's drifting is intentional, he's slowly allowing himself to float towards the gate marked "bowing out gracefully" in time for our one and true Meme Queen Emily T to take the reins in pounding whatever Mogglodyte shitheel is leading the Tories like a dockside hooker in the next GE.
The Guardian of all people said that her position on Brexit at PMQ's was incoherrent and easily taken down by Lidington
TBH Labour's creative incoherence over Brexit has served them pretty well this far. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake and all that.
No need to start a fight in your own house when there's a much more entertaining argy bargy going on next door.
Trouble for labour is the Government now have a position and Labour do not
That is an optimistic call, the conservatives have a firm position ?
Come on - I didn't say firm !!!!!
True , you have been very fair IMO.
I hope May can get the deal done, even if it needs opposition assistance.
Thanks - I have been on a journey these last few weeks triggerred by Boris unacceptable FO to Airbus ( my son in law is a senior engineer for them travelling backwards and forwards through France, Germany and Spain ) and his comments and behaviour before and since has been shameful. He, more than anyone, has turned me against the hard Brexiteers to the point that for me TM deal is the deal I support to fulfill the referendum and if the hard Brexiteers frustrate the process to a hard Brexit I would strongly campaign to remain.
It goes without saying that as a member I will not vote for a hard Brexiteer including Boris and JRM
Here's a thought, if the ERG lot don't have the 48 votes to trigger a VONC are we sure they'll be able to get a favoured son or daughter onto the final two for the next Tory leadership contest?
The ERG lot could not even agree on a favoured son or daughter, let alone get them elected.
It could still be Hammond as Brexit converges on what he forecast originally (albeit he was probably just reading a Treasury briefing note). 50/1 with Shadsy and an odds boost if you are lucky.
Who are the grown-ups left? Hunt, Javid, Hammond; who else?
Anybody who thinks Phil "If it moves I am going to tax it" Hammond will be next Tory leader is not on planet reality (in my opinion of course).
It's like the World Cup. Three weeks ago everyone said England would be lucky to get past the round of 16 and Croatia has a smaller population than Scotland. Yet here we are.
So who will be the semi-finalists in the Tory leadership betting? The Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and who? Not who do you like or who would you vote for or even (thanks to this thread) who ate all the pies but who has a solid defence, creative midfield and a top striker? Who will the draw open up for? Hunt maybe? I don't know if anyone had the foresight to tip him at 100/1 when Hunt was at Health but now he is in one of the great offices of state and will shake hands with The Donald. If I were a lady Cabinet minister's SpAd I might advise her to polish up her twitter feed and take elocution lessons but is there another bloke in the running?
We know from All Out War that Cameron and Osborne were behind Rudd (with funding) if a leadership contest happened. They may still be behind Rudd, but Hunt is in that group of friends as well. So they may switch to Hunt. I know there is an opinion of the brxiteer Tory MP's, that they can not get their act together, but again I do not believe this. The next leadership battle is between Leave and remain but at a more fundamental level between Metropolitan Torys and Shire Torys, very different values. The Leaver Tory MP's will IMO get behind a single candidate, it is just who it is that I can not decide, but I do not believe it will be Mr Javid, I also believe JRM will not stand.
It's been called many times before but I do think we are at or close to peak JC. He outkicked his coverage at the GE but the memory of that is fading. All we see from 2018 JC is a low energy disinclination to capitalise on the tory dtsfunction. I don't think he's going to make it to the 2022 GE.
I get the sense that Corbyn's drifting is intentional, he's slowly allowing himself to float towards the gate marked "bowing out gracefully" in time for our one and true Meme Queen Emily T to take the reins in pounding whatever Mogglodyte shitheel is leading the Tories like a dockside hooker in the next GE.
The Guardian of all people said that her position on Brexit at PMQ's was incoherrent and easily taken down by Lidington
TBH Labour's creative incoherence over Brexit has served them pretty well this far. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake and all that.
No need to start a fight in your own house when there's a much more entertaining argy bargy going on next door.
Trouble for labour is the Government now have a position and Labour do not
That is an optimistic call, the conservatives have a firm position ?
Come on - I didn't say firm !!!!!
True , you have been very fair IMO.
I hope May can get the deal done, even if it needs opposition assistance.
Thanks - I have been on a journey these last few weeks triggerred by Boris unacceptable FO to Airbus ( my son in law is a senior engineer for them travelling backwards and forwards through France, Germany and Spain ) and his comments and behaviour before and since has been shameful. He, more than anyone, has turned me against the hard Brexiteers to the point that for me TM deal is the deal I support to fulfill the referendum and if the hard Brexiteers frustrate the process to a hard Brexit I would strongly campaign to remain.
It goes without saying that as a member I will not vote for a hard Brexiteer including Boris and JRM
I get the sense that Corbyn's drifting is intentional, he's slowly allowing himself to float towards the gate marked "bowing out gracefully" in time for our one and true Meme Queen Emily T to take the reins in pounding May like a dockside hooker in the next GE.
The Uk hasn't voted for a fat PM since 1951...
Anybody who has already been elected to parliament is manifestly capable of attracting more votes than their opponents.
IMHO the UK electorate would grasp at anybody who seems to be competent. I find it hard to believe (a) that you are writing people off on the grounds of their size and (b) that you see Ms Thornberry in such terms as you use.
But there, maybe that's how we have acquired such a useless array of non-talent in parliament. Never mind the competence, look at the height/breadth.
I get the sense that Corbyn's drifting is intentional, he's slowly allowing himself to float towards the gate marked "bowing out gracefully" in time for our one and true Meme Queen Emily T to take the reins in pounding whatever Mogglodyte shitheel is leading the Tories like a dockside hooker in the next GE.
The Guardian of all people said that her position on Brexit at PMQ's was incoherrent and easily taken down by Lidington
TBH Labour's creative incoherence over Brexit has served them pretty well this far. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake and all that.
No need to start a fight in your own house when there's a much more entertaining argy bargy going on next door.
Trouble for labour is the Government now have a position and Labour do not
That is an optimistic call, the conservatives have a firm position ?
Come on - I didn't say firm !!!!!
True , you have been very fair IMO.
I hope May can get the deal done, even if it needs opposition assistance.
Thanks - I have been on a journey these last few weeks triggerred by Boris unacceptable FO to Airbus ( my son in law is a senior engineer for them travelling backwards and forwards through France, Germany and Spain ) and his comments and behaviour before and since has been shameful. He, more than anyone, has turned me against the hard Brexiteers to the point that for me TM deal is the deal I support to fulfill the referendum and if the hard Brexiteers frustrate the process to a hard Brexit I would strongly campaign to remain.
It goes without saying that as a member I will not vote for a hard Brexiteer including Boris and JRM
I get the sense that Corbyn's drifting is intentional, he's slowly allowing himself to float towards the gate marked "bowing out gracefully" in time for our one and true Meme Queen Emily T to take the reins in pounding May like a dockside hooker in the next GE.
The Uk hasn't voted for a fat PM since 1951...
Anybody who has already been elected to parliament is manifestly capable of attracting more votes than their opponents.
IMHO the UK electorate would grasp at anybody who seems to be competent. I find it hard to believe (a) that you are writing people off on the grounds of their size and (b) that you see Ms Thornberry in such terms as you use.
But there, maybe that's how we have acquired such a useless array of non-talent in parliament. Never mind the competence, look at the height/breadth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
If you showed voters a picture of their MP, what proportion would know who they were looking at?
It's been called many times before but I do think we are at or close to peak JC. He outkicked his coverage at the GE but the memory of that is fading. All we see from 2018 JC is a low energy disinclination to capitalise on the tory dtsfunction. I don't think he's going to make it to the 2022 GE.
The only think Corbyn cares about is taking control of the Labour Party mechanisms, Fill it with hard lefties in the admin and at candidate levels . It doesn't matter about winning or losing. Its ideology that matters
Corbyn's problem is that his greatest asset is becoming his biggest weakness. Where he's different to previous standard bearers of the hard left, like his mentor Tony Benn, is that he doesn't follow through on the logic of his beliefs and include the potentially unpopular or negative consequences or corollaries to them. He's really a 'Declarative Socialist' whose lodestar is socialism not because he understands the mechanics but because he believes it a cure-all. Every Corbyn speech takes the format of stating a societal or global ill, declaring he'll solve it and then to paraphrase Elvis Costello, saying: "What's so funny about (peace love and understanding) that?". That's served him well as it's why his internal and external enemies have never quite got to grips with him. He's difficult to cast as the ogre because he only declares himself for nice things - even when the logical consequences of his actions are vile or awful. It's what runs through his actions on everything from Syria, to Brexit and anti-Semitism. He'll declare himself in favour of something objectively good - peace, Brexit without any of the negatives, broad anti-racism - without examining the complexities of the issue and why the answer might be a bit more complicated than having a well meaning socialist in charge.
That so far has been an asset. He's mostly been able to brush off even profoundly justified attacks by being vague and asserting his belief in his own moral virtue. However, eventually, even as an opposition leader you begin to be judged on the consequences of your actions and what you've actually achieved. We're getting to that stage with both Brexit and anti-Semitism - where even some of the faithful are beginning to get a bit tired of the magic grandpa act and ask what the actual plan is. On anti-Semitism even those who are mildly sympathetic towards the left of the party are beginning to see that he's hugely responsible, both through inaction and his actions, for the racist filth polluting the party. On Brexit they're starting to question why there's a vacuum when we need some form of alternative strategy to the chaos among the Tories - whether it's EEA/EFTA soft Brexit or revisiting the vote in the wake of two years of ballsing it up. We're not quite there yet, but he's getting to the point now where he's led the party long enough to have put his stamp on it and have made a difference, and people are going to start asking where's the beef?
It's been called many times before but I do think we are at or close to peak JC. He outkicked his coverage at the GE but the memory of that is fading. All we see from 2018 JC is a low energy disinclination to capitalise on the tory dtsfunction. I don't think he's going to make it to the 2022 GE.
The only think Corbyn cares about is taking control of the Labour Party mechanisms, Fill it with hard lefties in the admin and at candidate levels . It doesn't matter about winning or losing. Its ideology that matters
Actually, I don't think he really cares much about that at all. It strikes me that the thing he cares most about is providing a voice to what he sees as injustice.
MacDonnell and Milne, by contrast, are very interested in the mechanics of power.
Theresa May faces Tory rebellion on Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg leads bid to formally block Chequers plan The leading Brexiteer and his followers have tabled four amendments to the Trade Bill being debated next week
Theresa May faces Tory rebellion on Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg leads bid to formally block Chequers plan The leading Brexiteer and his followers have tabled four amendments to the Trade Bill being debated next week
Theresa May faces Tory rebellion on Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg leads bid to formally block Chequers plan The leading Brexiteer and his followers have tabled four amendments to the Trade Bill being debated next week
To be fair to JRM if he is going to use legitimate amendments then that is reasonable and grown up, unlike the threats of a resignation a day and / or a leadership challenge
It is also passing the responsibility to Parliament and I have no problem with that
Theresa May faces Tory rebellion on Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg leads bid to formally block Chequers plan The leading Brexiteer and his followers have tabled four amendments to the Trade Bill being debated next week
To be fair to JRM if he is going to use legitimate amendments then that is reasonable and grown up, unlike the threats of a resignation a day and / or a leadership challenge
It is also passing the responsibity to Parliament and I have no problem with that
Yes, this is the most grown up thing the ERG have done in a long time, pressure via votes and amendments not threats.
However isn't the risk that given Theresa has clearly decided to face them down, that the amendments gather an embarrassingly low number of votes if Lab don't get on board - and these don't seem Labour friendly amendments? Might serve to show how few people they speak for.
Here's a thought, if the ERG lot don't have the 48 votes to trigger a VONC are we sure they'll be able to get a favoured son or daughter onto the final two for the next Tory leadership contest?
We do know that they have the votes to trigger a VoNC - that's simply a question of numbers. The fact that there hasn't been such a vote however means that quite a lot of them don't want one right now, for whatever reasons. And yes, one of those reasons may well be that they don't think they'd get a candidate onto the members' ballot paper. I think they'd be right in that assessment. The MPs won't vote just on brexit stance but on all sorts of factors, including the traditional ones of experience and demonstrated capability in office. If JRM was to stand, it's far from obvious that the majority, never mind all, of the ERG would back him - and even if they did, he'd still struggle to make the final two.
What are your thoughts if Suella Braverman stood? Would she get the universal backing of the ERG?
No. I doubt that the ERG is capable of acting as a block anyway but certainly not in favour of a very junior minister in her 30s, only three years an MP, and who didn't resign alongside David Davis.
Rather a dangerous tactic from the ERGonauts. If the public conclude that whatever Brexit means is a matter for theological debate, they might decide that they aren't all that interested in Homoousian /Homoiousian recriminations.
Rather a dangerous tactic from the ERGonauts. If the public conclude that whatever Brexit means is a matter for theological debate, they might decide that they aren't all that interested in Homoousian /Homoiousian recriminations.
Yes, this is the most grown up thing the ERG have done in a long time, pressure via votes and amendments not threats.
However isn't the risk that given Theresa has clearly decided to face them down, that the amendments gather an embarrassingly low number of votes if Lab don't get on board - and these don't seem Labour friendly amendments? Might serve to show how few people they speak for.
Rather a dangerous tactic from the ERGonauts. If the public conclude that whatever Brexit means is a matter for theological debate, they might decide that they aren't all that interested in Homoousian /Homoiousian recriminations.
Theresa May faces Tory rebellion on Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg leads bid to formally block Chequers plan The leading Brexiteer and his followers have tabled four amendments to the Trade Bill being debated next week
To be fair to JRM if he is going to use legitimate amendments then that is reasonable and grown up, unlike the threats of a resignation a day and / or a leadership challenge
It is also passing the responsibity to Parliament and I have no problem with that
Yes, this is the most grown up thing the ERG have done in a long time, pressure via votes and amendments not threats.
However isn't the risk that given Theresa has clearly decided to face them down, that the amendments gather an embarrassingly low number of votes if Lab don't get on board - and these don't seem Labour friendly amendments? Might serve to show how few people they speak for.
I am sure you are right but I am very relaxed over this now the ERG have decided to act as grown ups.
Maybe TM will compromise in discussions with JRM - we will have to see but it is interesting
That so far has been an asset. He's mostly been able to brush off even profoundly justified attacks by being vague and asserting his belief in his own moral virtue. However, eventually, even as an opposition leader you begin to be judged on the consequences of your actions and what you've actually achieved. We're getting to that stage with both Brexit and anti-Semitism - where even some of the faithful are beginning to get a bit tired of the magic grandpa act and ask what the actual plan is. On anti-Semitism even those who are mildly sympathetic towards the left of the party are beginning to see that he's hugely responsible, both through inaction and his actions, for the racist filth polluting the party. On Brexit they're starting to question why there's a vacuum when we need some form of alternative strategy to the chaos among the Tories - whether it's EEA/EFTA soft Brexit or revisiting the vote in the wake of two years of ballsing it up. We're not quite there yet, but he's getting to the point now where he's led the party long enough to have put his stamp on it and have made a difference, and people are going to start asking where's the beef?
Lovely comment.
Although I do think a lot of the first paragraph can be explained by him being rather dim.
Thanks! Yeah, he's not what you'd call a profound thinker. But then neither are the likes of David Davis, Andrea Jenkyns, Ben Bradley, IDS, Nadine Dorries etc. Dimwits abound across the spectrum. What I was trying to get across is that on here or among Corbyn's opponents in Labour and the Tories there's some incredulity that he isn't just dismissed by voters out of hand as a bad Bennite tribute act. His supporters say he hasn't been because those ideas' time has come. I think neither is the case because he's something distinct to old school socialism - which whatever its faults followed through on its own logic. Benn was perfectly prepared to admit he was advocating nationalisation as part of a siege economy, as he thought it for the best. Corbyn isn't - his version of nationalisation is a declarative cure-all for whatever's wrong in a particular industry. He does it with everything - say something's bad, gets righteously angry and declares it will be solved if only he's in charge (without explaining how, and the trade-offs involved) - and it's proved much more successful than Bennism - but its limits will likely be found out when you have to take decisions with negative consequences, as all serious politicians do. He's now finding with Brexit, where his 'cake and eat it but tastier with red icing' has begun to be rumbled and got even his supporters (albeit politely at the moment, and while still having a pop at mythical Blairite plots) questioning his approach.
As a general rule it's not a good look for the governing party to be split, nor for events to seem to be out of the control of the PM, so one might expect support for the Conservatives to drop substantially. However, I'm not sure that will apply in this case; Theresa May's approach is being attacked by various shades of fruitcake on both sides. Voters might just conclude that she's trying to steer a sensible middle course (which she is, as it happens).
Based on the high-level summary of the DUP amendment in the Sun, it would actually make any kind of managed divergence impossible, so locks in an even softer Brexit than implied by Chequers.
Yes, this is the most grown up thing the ERG have done in a long time, pressure via votes and amendments not threats.
However isn't the risk that given Theresa has clearly decided to face them down, that the amendments gather an embarrassingly low number of votes if Lab don't get on board - and these don't seem Labour friendly amendments? Might serve to show how few people they speak for.
Here's a thought, if the ERG lot don't have the 48 votes to trigger a VONC are we sure they'll be able to get a favoured son or daughter onto the final two for the next Tory leadership contest?
We do know that they have the votes to trigger a VoNC - that's simply a question of numbers. The fact that there hasn't been such a vote however means that quite a lot of them don't want one right now, for whatever reasons. And yes, one of those reasons may well be that they don't think they'd get a candidate onto the members' ballot paper. I think they'd be right in that assessment. The MPs won't vote just on brexit stance but on all sorts of factors, including the traditional ones of experience and demonstrated capability in office. If JRM was to stand, it's far from obvious that the majority, never mind all, of the ERG would back him - and even if they did, he'd still struggle to make the final two.
What are your thoughts if Suella Braverman stood? Would she get the universal backing of the ERG?
No. I doubt that the ERG is capable of acting as a block anyway but certainly not in favour of a very junior minister in her 30s, only three years an MP, and who didn't resign alongside David Davis.
Based on the high-level summary of the DUP amendment in the Sun, it would actually make any kind of managed divergence impossible, so locks in an even softer Brexit than implied by Chequers.
As a general rule it's not a good look for the governing party to be split, nor for events to seem to be out of the control of the PM, so one might expect support for the Conservatives to drop substantially. However, I'm not sure that will apply in this case; Theresa May's approach is being attacked by various shades of fruitcake on both sides. Voters might just conclude that she's trying to steer a sensible middle course (which she is, as it happens).
On one hand, May is definitely trying to make the best of a nearly impossible position.
On the other hand, it's a position she put herself in voluntarily, and then made immeasurably more difficult by her own unforced errors.
So I'm not sure she deserves any pity or sympathy.
Yes, this is the most grown up thing the ERG have done in a long time, pressure via votes and amendments not threats.
However isn't the risk that given Theresa has clearly decided to face them down, that the amendments gather an embarrassingly low number of votes if Lab don't get on board - and these don't seem Labour friendly amendments? Might serve to show how few people they speak for.
As a general rule it's not a good look for the governing party to be split, nor for events to seem to be out of the control of the PM, so one might expect support for the Conservatives to drop substantially. However, I'm not sure that will apply in this case; Theresa May's approach is being attacked by various shades of fruitcake on both sides. Voters might just conclude that she's trying to steer a sensible middle course (which she is, as it happens).
On one hand, May is definitely trying to make the best of a nearly impossible position.
On the other hand, it's a position she put herself in voluntarily, and then made immeasurably more difficult by her own unforced errors.
So I'm not sure she deserves any pity or sympathy.
If Labour abstains on these amendments for maximum lulz value, they should still be easily overturned by the House.
As Carswell suggests these amendments will achieve nothing but highlight how hilariously impotent the Brexiteers are in the face of May's looming BRINO betrayal.
Theresa May's approach is being attacked by various shades of fruitcake on both sides. Voters might just conclude that she's trying to steer a sensible middle course (which she is, as it happens).
Yes - anecdotally, I've encountered quite a few people who believe that of her (though it's not an opinion I personally share!).
As a general rule it's not a good look for the governing party to be split, nor for events to seem to be out of the control of the PM, so one might expect support for the Conservatives to drop substantially. However, I'm not sure that will apply in this case; Theresa May's approach is being attacked by various shades of fruitcake on both sides. Voters might just conclude that she's trying to steer a sensible middle course (which she is, as it happens).
Blair & Brown managed it. Albeit it wasn't quite as visible to the general public.
It's just obviously nonsense. Brexit has really shown how much these dupposedly objective economic studies are really just people picking assumptions to get the numbers to back their political preferences.
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
As a general rule it's not a good look for the governing party to be split, nor for events to seem to be out of the control of the PM, so one might expect support for the Conservatives to drop substantially. However, I'm not sure that will apply in this case; Theresa May's approach is being attacked by various shades of fruitcake on both sides. Voters might just conclude that she's trying to steer a sensible middle course (which she is, as it happens).
Blair & Brown managed it. Albeit it wasn't quite as visible to the general public.
It's a hell of a lot easier when you've got a majority of 179, or even 66!
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'. She wanted to be able to impose her authority over both wings of the party, and quite rightly so.
It was a good plan. Unfortunately the execution was less so...
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'.
She still seems to be living in Cakeland. Though I imagine it's a lot nicer there than her actual reality.
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'.
She still seems to be living in Cakeland. Though I imagine it's a lot nicer there than her actual reality.
I don't know; the EU seems to be emitting conciliatory smoke-signals, but we'll see.
If you're a Tory Remainer, don't you vote through the Customs Union amendment now? Brexiteers are playing a really dangerous game. No Deal has become a lot more likely but also, Soft/No Brexit is also right back on the table.
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
Another one who doesn't seem to be able to understand the crucial difference between 'no deal' and 'a deal for an orderly transition to WTO terms'.
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'.
She still seems to be living in Cakeland. Though I imagine it's a lot nicer there than her actual reality.
Not at all. She has made clear we will get less access in services due to our divergence there. The issue is Europhiles take the EU's opening position on everything as gospel and anything that deviates from that as "cakeism".
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'. She wanted to be able to impose her authority over both wings of the party, and quite rightly so.
So. No reason why you should trust some random poster on the internet, but trust me, it was so.
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'. She wanted to be able to impose her authority over both wings of the party, and quite rightly so.
It was a good plan. Unfortunately the execution was less so...
Once upon a time, anything harder than EEA was considered "hard Brexit".
Mr. Smith, if May wants us to have our trade dictated by the EU, to have our regulatory laws determined by the EU, to stay in the single market for goods, the electorate might conclude their vote to leave isn't being taken seriously.
Was 1963 and the Wilson and MacMillan the last time both major parties were led by men who used the same Christian name?
I reckon it is going to happen again with Corbyn and Hunt.
Suppose Liz Truss becomes PM - when would be the last time that Monarch and PM shared a first name?
George Canning, George IV?
Edit: no, forget that one - William, Viscount Melbourne, William IV?
I thought it would be George Canning, but the two Williams are more recent.
One reason I thought of the Georges is that, were Charles to take the Regnal name of George - as rumoured - then a triumphal return of the Evening Standard editor to politics would also create a match.
It's just obviously nonsense. Brexit has really shown how much these dupposedly objective economic studies are really just people picking assumptions to get the numbers to back their political preferences.
Why anyone takes economic forecasting seriously is beyond me.
"Events of recent days have shown why the PM called a snap election. She needed a big majority to get a Brexit compromise through."
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
Be absolutely clear, she called a snap election to solidify her position and to pursue a hard Brexit. It would have meant the likes of Soubry, Morgan, etc could be ignored, not Redwood, Davis, etc.
Not so. Her Lancaster House position was not a hard Brexit, that's why the EU accused her of 'cakeism'. She wanted to be able to impose her authority over both wings of the party, and quite rightly so.
It was a good plan. Unfortunately the execution was less so...
Once upon a time, anything harder than EEA was considered "hard Brexit".
The correct analysis. Chequers is already far harder than is in anyway advisable, so the fruit loops on the right should count themselves lucky.
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
Another one who doesn't seem to be able to understand the crucial difference between 'no deal' and 'a deal for an orderly transition to WTO terms'.
You've said this before, but over what time-frame to you imagine this orderly transition happening? 2 years would not be long enough.
Mr. Smith, if May wants us to have our trade dictated by the EU, to have our regulatory laws determined by the EU, to stay in the single market for goods, the electorate might conclude their vote to leave isn't being taken seriously.
If Airbus and JLR close, the electorate might conclude their vote to leave wasn't what they wanted
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
Another one who doesn't seem to be able to understand the crucial difference between 'no deal' and 'a deal for an orderly transition to WTO terms'.
You've said this before, but over what time-frame to you imagine this orderly transition happening? 2 years would not be long enough.
Quite possibly not. I'm not advocating it, merely pointing out the confusion, which is a hugely important one.
As a general rule it's not a good look for the governing party to be split, nor for events to seem to be out of the control of the PM, so one might expect support for the Conservatives to drop substantially. However, I'm not sure that will apply in this case; Theresa May's approach is being attacked by various shades of fruitcake on both sides. Voters might just conclude that she's trying to steer a sensible middle course (which she is, as it happens).
Spot on. Labour also has its fair share of europhobic fruitcakes – see Hopkins, Skinner and Hoey for more details.
It's just obviously nonsense. Brexit has really shown how much these dupposedly objective economic studies are really just people picking assumptions to get the numbers to back their political preferences.
Why anyone takes economic forecasting seriously is beyond me.
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
The UK's position is such that about half the electorate (perhaps at least) will be unhappy with whatever happens next. The political class driving ever more integration with the EU is the cause of this uncomfortable crossroads whereby we have to choose between losing the economics (which we broadly like) and the politics (which we broadly do not).
Had we had the promised (in three manifestos, at that) referendum on Lisbon, both we and the EU would be in a rather better position. The reneging of that promise is one reason why people voted to leave, for they feared they would never have the opportunity again.
Edited extra bit: ahem, bit sleepy. In the second paragraph I meant between losing both or keeping both.
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
Another one who doesn't seem to be able to understand the crucial difference between 'no deal' and 'a deal for an orderly transition to WTO terms'.
You've said this before, but over what time-frame to you imagine this orderly transition happening? 2 years would not be long enough.
Quite possibly not. I'm not advocating it, merely pointing out the confusion, which is a hugely important one.
I don't believe the confusion exists. As far as I can tell, people who talk about going to WTO rules almost exclusively envisage dropping off the cliff in March, possibly with the further expectation that the EU will immediately come running with an offer in our favour.
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
John Redwood is an interesting one to me.
He's widely regarded as a head-banger. But he's also regarded as a parliamentarian with a huge intellect who's sacrificed a mega-money life in the city for a life of (ridicule and) public service.
He obviously isn't stupid, and he obviously knows a lot about the EU, so how come he thinks this approach is a good idea when so many others don't?
I reckon Corbyn will abstain on all four, and the Gov't will win big with the support of the Ummunites in Labour.
I reckon he'll go with the Irish Sea amendment (the one that is actually helpful to negotiations anyway I suspect) and abstain on the other three.
Isn't he supportive of a united Ireland? i'd expect him to whip an abstention there too, as he won't be able to enforce a nationalist agenda onto Labour (yet).
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
It's obvious why forecasting is attractive, that doesn't mean it works. The idea that you can forecast where the UK economy will be in 15 years time is laughable. Wind the clock back to 2003 and think of all the things that will be missing from your model for where we are today. They run from the global finacial crash, to Brexit, to a "fucking moron"* being elected and starting trade wars with everybody.
I don't believe the confusion exists. As far as I can tell, people who talk about going to WTO rules almost exclusively envisage dropping off the cliff in March, possibly with the further expectation that the EU will immediately come running with an offer in our favour.
That may be, but they talk exclusively about what they argue are the benefits of WTO terms, with no mention at all of the fact that little details like airline rights would not have been agreed, so no planes could fly from the UK, and dozens of other important points which have to be agreed with our EU friends (or our EU enemies, as they would no doubt see it). Quite how they see this happening with no Withdrawal Deal, and therefore no payments to the EU, is a mystery.
We shouldn't talk about 'no deal' because of this massive confusion - we should always be clear if we mean no trade deal, or no transitional/withdrawal deal.
He's widely regarded as a head-banger. But he's also regarded as a parliamentarian with a huge intellect who's sacrificed a mega-money life in the city for a life of (ridicule and) public service.
He obviously isn't stupid, and he obviously knows a lot about the EU, so how come he thinks this approach is a good idea when so many others don't?
He is a very bright guy, and (contrary to popular belief), not right-wing in many respects, although he is dry as dust on economics.
But, the brightest people get blinkered, and the EU draws down the blinkers like no other topic!
I don't believe the confusion exists. As far as I can tell, people who talk about going to WTO rules almost exclusively envisage dropping off the cliff in March, possibly with the further expectation that the EU will immediately come running with an offer in our favour.
That may be, but they talk exclusively about what they argue are the benefits of WTO terms, with no mention at all of the fact that little details like airline rights would not have been agreed, so no planes could fly from the UK, and dozens of other important points which have to be agreed with our EU friends (or our EU enemies, as they would no doubt see it). Quite how they see this happening with no Withdrawal Deal, and therefore no payments to the EU, is a mystery.
We shouldn't talk about 'no deal' because of this massive confusion - we should always be clear if we mean no trade deal, or no transitional/withdrawal deal.
They see it as a game of chicken and simply refuse to believe that those consequences would happen.
It's almost a religious belief that if we throw off the shackles of the EU but carry on as if nothing has changed, everyone will suddenly realise that the EU serves no purpose and it will just disappear from the face of Europe.
How curious in Italy: Salvini's LN continues to gain, and in the latest poll has drawn level with M5S, yet the Italians seem to be shying away from Quitaly...
Agreed. Why there is a whole range of institutions, individuals and departments producing economic forecasts, and why governments, multinationals, banks, individuals, cooperatives, SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations, trade bodies and associations, trades unions, and probably your local newsagent utilise them is beyond me.
It's obvious why forecasting is attractive, that doesn't mean it works. The idea that you can forecast where the UK economy will be in 15 years time is laughable. Wind the clock back to 2003 and think of all the things that will be missing from your model for where we are today. They run from the global finacial crash, to Brexit, to a "fucking moron"* being elected and starting trade wars with everybody.
* As Rex Tillerson describes Trump.
It works at the very least in testing assumptions which are used to produce the base forecast, together with sensitivities around the base forecast to understand risk and tolerance. Tail, or so-called black swan events are just that, low probability outcomes which are usually appropriately weighted in forecasts.
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
John Redwood is an interesting one to me.
He's widely regarded as a head-banger. But he's also regarded as a parliamentarian with a huge intellect who's sacrificed a mega-money life in the city for a life of (ridicule and) public service.
He obviously isn't stupid, and he obviously knows a lot about the EU, so how come he thinks this approach is a good idea when so many others don't?
I suspect old Spock is just following things through to their logical conclusion. And he's right: No Deal would indeed deliver full control of borders, laws and trade policy. Just what the 52% voted for. QED! (It's just the economic Armageddon that comes with it that's giving everyone else pause for thought.)
Rather a dangerous tactic from the ERGonauts. If the public conclude that whatever Brexit means is a matter for theological debate, they might decide that they aren't all that interested in Homoousian /Homoiousian recriminations.
Not sure what you mean
Homoousians believe that the Son is of one substance with the Father. Homoiousians believe that the Son is of like substance to the Father.
How curious in Italy: Salvini's LN continues to gain, and in the latest poll has drawn level with M5S, yet the Italians seem to be shying away from Quitaly...
Comments
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labours-emily-thornberry-tears-squirming-12894221
IMHO the UK electorate would grasp at anybody who seems to be competent. I find it hard to believe (a) that you are writing people off on the grounds of their size and (b) that you see Ms Thornberry in such terms as you use.
But there, maybe that's how we have acquired such a useless array of non-talent in parliament. Never mind the competence, look at the height/breadth.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Jokes are one thing, having a policy is another, and trying to muddle through on detail is futile
How many 'just about managing' are paying for this excess
Time to scap the licence fee
Edit: no, forget that one - William, Viscount Melbourne, William IV?
MacDonnell and Milne, by contrast, are very interested in the mechanics of power.
The leading Brexiteer and his followers have tabled four amendments to the Trade Bill being debated next week
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6752805/theresa-may-faces-tory-rebellion-on-brexit-as-jacob-rees-mogg-leads-bid-to-formally-block-chequers-plan/
I do not have the technical knowledge on the others
It is also passing the responsibility to Parliament and I have no problem with that
I presume Clarke and the other pro EU Tories will be backing the Government this time but beyond that it is hard to tell what will happen.
However isn't the risk that given Theresa has clearly decided to face them down, that the amendments gather an embarrassingly low number of votes if Lab don't get on board - and these don't seem Labour friendly amendments? Might serve to show how few people they speak for.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/fareham-mp-suella-braverman-joins-david-davis-in-brexit-exodus-1-8560332
As I have said I have no problem with the HOC deciding
Maybe TM will compromise in discussions with JRM - we will have to see but it is interesting
On the other hand, it's a position she put herself in voluntarily, and then made immeasurably more difficult by her own unforced errors.
So I'm not sure she deserves any pity or sympathy.
Well, quite. The fact that she didn't get it makes a bad deal, or even no deal, substantially more likely.
As Carswell suggests these amendments will achieve nothing but highlight how hilariously impotent the Brexiteers are in the face of May's looming BRINO betrayal.
This is what Brexit-era politics has become. Mogglodytes weaponising Corbyn against May to try to make her life miserable.
It was a good plan. Unfortunately the execution was less so...
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/07/11/no-deal-the-wto-global-trading-option-is-the-benchmark-to-beat-for-leaving-the-eu/
No Deal delivers most of what Brexit voters want. It means we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 as promised. We leave without paying any extra money to the EU as a leaving present. We regain control of our laws, our borders and our trade policy. The only thing it does not give us is a free trade deal with the EU. I suspect if we look as if we mean to leave without a deal the EU would want to extend its current offer of a free trade deal for Great Britain into an offer for the UK, as we will of course not accept one which leaves out Northern Ireland.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017050809547272192
One reason I thought of the Georges is that, were Charles to take the Regnal name of George - as rumoured - then a triumphal return of the Evening Standard editor to politics would also create a match.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1017030019930091520
Croatia 4
Draw 3.15
To qualify:
England 1.63
Croatia 2.56
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.145333868
The UK's position is such that about half the electorate (perhaps at least) will be unhappy with whatever happens next. The political class driving ever more integration with the EU is the cause of this uncomfortable crossroads whereby we have to choose between losing the economics (which we broadly like) and the politics (which we broadly do not).
Had we had the promised (in three manifestos, at that) referendum on Lisbon, both we and the EU would be in a rather better position. The reneging of that promise is one reason why people voted to leave, for they feared they would never have the opportunity again.
Edited extra bit: ahem, bit sleepy. In the second paragraph I meant between losing both or keeping both.
He's widely regarded as a head-banger. But he's also regarded as a parliamentarian with a huge intellect who's sacrificed a mega-money life in the city for a life of (ridicule and) public service.
He obviously isn't stupid, and he obviously knows a lot about the EU, so how come he thinks this approach is a good idea when so many others don't?
* As Rex Tillerson describes Trump.
We shouldn't talk about 'no deal' because of this massive confusion - we should always be clear if we mean no trade deal, or no transitional/withdrawal deal.
But, the brightest people get blinkered, and the EU draws down the blinkers like no other topic!
It's almost a religious belief that if we throw off the shackles of the EU but carry on as if nothing has changed, everyone will suddenly realise that the EU serves no purpose and it will just disappear from the face of Europe.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1016569515008806913
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-prhutaInI