It's quite likely that every Sunday until May leaves we will have a story like this in one of the Sunday papers, so it's notable that we've already reached the fantasy of JRM as Chancellor at the Treacherous Treasury.
How much more outlandish can the proposed new Cabinets become?
One that has Dominic Grieve in it?
PM: Ken Clarke Chancellor: Amber Rudd Foreign Secretary: Dominic Grieve Home Secretary: Anna Soubry
I think the members might not go along with that one. (Sample size:1)
Make that 2.
I do wish the Rudd boosterism would stop. The membership will not go for her.
As leaving the EU proves not to be the cake walk they promised, the Tory Brexit loons have so far blamed: 1. The BBC 2. The House of Commons 3. The House of Lords 4. The courts 5. The civil service 6. The EU 7. Remain voters 8. The Bank of England 9. British businesses 10. The Irish
Have I missed anyone out?
I just appreciate you making clear it's the tory Brexit loons who have done that rather than the lazy, emotional histrionics of those who deliberately pretend all people on each side are exactly the same.
I see no attempt by self-proclaimed moderate Leavers to distance themselves from the xenophobic loons. You have to conclude that they enjoy their company.
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
It's quite likely that every Sunday until May leaves we will have a story like this in one of the Sunday papers, so it's notable that we've already reached the fantasy of JRM as Chancellor at the Treacherous Treasury.
How much more outlandish can the proposed new Cabinets become?
One that has Dominic Grieve in it?
PM: Ken Clarke Chancellor: Amber Rudd Foreign Secretary: Dominic Grieve Home Secretary: Anna Soubry
I think the members might not go along with that one. (Sample size:1)
Make that 2.
I do wish the Rudd boosterism would stop. The membership will not go for her.
I'm prepared to drop Rudd in favour of Nicky Morgan if you want a clean break with the May era.
It's quite likely that every Sunday until May leaves we will have a story like this in one of the Sunday papers, so it's notable that we've already reached the fantasy of JRM as Chancellor at the Treacherous Treasury.
How much more outlandish can the proposed new Cabinets become?
One that has Dominic Grieve in it?
PM: Ken Clarke Chancellor: Amber Rudd Foreign Secretary: Dominic Grieve Home Secretary: Anna Soubry
I think the members might not go along with that one. (Sample size:1)
Make that 2.
I do wish the Rudd boosterism would stop. The membership will not go for her.
She’s also way out of her depth at the Home Office, the only reason some people like her is that she was a Remain campaigner.
Really surprised by the83% negative poll for Gove. Everyone I know (Con, Lab, LibDem) thinks he's doing a great job. Shows the danger of extrapolating from the people you know.
It's quite likely that every Sunday until May leaves we will have a story like this in one of the Sunday papers, so it's notable that we've already reached the fantasy of JRM as Chancellor at the Treacherous Treasury.
How much more outlandish can the proposed new Cabinets become?
One that has Dominic Grieve in it?
PM: Ken Clarke Chancellor: Amber Rudd Foreign Secretary: Dominic Grieve Home Secretary: Anna Soubry
I think the members might not go along with that one. (Sample size:1)
Make that 2.
I do wish the Rudd boosterism would stop. The membership will not go for her.
I'm prepared to drop Rudd in favour of Nicky Morgan if you want a clean break with the May era.
Really surprised by the83% negative poll for Gove. Everyone I know (Con, Lab, LibDem) thinks he's doing a great job. Shows the danger of extrapolating from the people you know.
That poll is from last June.
It is the most recent poll on this topic I could find.
I suspect Gove's ratings have improved since then, but moved to dire instead of appalling.
It's quite likely that every Sunday until May leaves we will have a story like this in one of the Sunday papers, so it's notable that we've already reached the fantasy of JRM as Chancellor at the Treacherous Treasury.
How much more outlandish can the proposed new Cabinets become?
One that has Dominic Grieve in it?
PM: Ken Clarke Chancellor: Amber Rudd Foreign Secretary: Dominic Grieve Home Secretary: Anna Soubry
I think the members might not go along with that one. (Sample size:1)
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
I am not OKC but I would point out that liberalism was the big loser from the clash of ideologies in the 1930s, as Stalinism and fascism agreed on their hatred of liberals. Liberalism was ascendent after the War as people said never again and liberal institutions like the EU were set up to make it happen. Liberalism is under attack again by movements such as Brexit and Trump as it is blamed for ruining people's lifestyles with globalisation and the Credit Crunch
Really surprised by the83% negative poll for Gove. Everyone I know (Con, Lab, LibDem) thinks he's doing a great job. Shows the danger of extrapolating from the people you know.
Even when he is doing the right thing, his manner is immensely smug and annoying.
@tnewtondunn: Rudd: “I have a surprise for the Brexiteers. The committee is more united than they think”. Are Boris/Gove preparing to compromise on customs union? #Marr
I think I would be speaking for most when I say 'what a mess'
There is no immediate way through this but compromise is inevitable.
Both hard remainers and leavers will not get all they want
On the contrary, without a compromise we crash out of the EU with no deal. The hard Leavers therefore have no incentive to compromise.
If they hold off a leadership challenge to May until a bit later in the process they may make it impossible for the British government to strike or ratify a deal with the EU.
I think I would be speaking for most when I say 'what a mess'
There is no immediate way through this but compromise is inevitable.
Both hard remainers and leavers will not get all they want
On the contrary, without a compromise we crash out of the EU with no deal. The hard Leavers therefore have no incentive to compromise.
If they hold off a leadership challenge to May until a bit later in the process they may make it impossible for the British government to strike or ratify a deal with the EU.
@tnewtondunn: Rudd: “I have a surprise for the Brexiteers. The committee is more united than they think”. Are Boris/Gove preparing to compromise on customs union? #Marr
Morning all,
To get all Machiavellian about it: perhaps the Boris/Gove have agreed to support a customs union position knowing full well that this might trigger the last few letters of no confidence and thus a contest.
Interesting - being in 'a' Customs Union would mean the EU could sell access to our market to who ever they liked, without any input - or reciprocal benefit for us:
That would mean for instance that in the EU/Japan trade deal, which is currently being negotiated, Turkey would apply the reduced tariffs on Japanese imports but would not be party to the deal to reciprocally reduce tariffs on exports to Japan
I think I would be speaking for most when I say 'what a mess'
There is no immediate way through this but compromise is inevitable.
Both hard remainers and leavers will not get all they want
On the contrary, without a compromise we crash out of the EU with no deal. The hard Leavers therefore have no incentive to compromise.
If they hold off a leadership challenge to May until a bit later in the process they may make it impossible for the British government to strike or ratify a deal with the EU.
I don't think there is a need for compromise between the remainers and the hardline leavers in the Tory Party nor do I think it is possible.
The 50 or so hardline leavers (the Rees-Mogg mob) are actually impotent. They don't have the votes to drive hardline legislation nor derail soft Brexit. Nor do they have the votes to win a non confidence vote on May. So they make a lot of noise instead.
It's quite likely that every Sunday until May leaves we will have a story like this in one of the Sunday papers, so it's notable that we've already reached the fantasy of JRM as Chancellor at the Treacherous Treasury.
How much more outlandish can the proposed new Cabinets become?
One that has Dominic Grieve in it?
PM: Ken Clarke Chancellor: Amber Rudd Foreign Secretary: Dominic Grieve Home Secretary: Anna Soubry
I think the members might not go along with that one. (Sample size:1)
Isn't that the Cabinet of the forthcoming Liberal Unionist government?
I think I would be speaking for most when I say 'what a mess'
There is no immediate way through this but compromise is inevitable.
Both hard remainers and leavers will not get all they want
On the contrary, without a compromise we crash out of the EU with no deal. The hard Leavers therefore have no incentive to compromise.
If they hold off a leadership challenge to May until a bit later in the process they may make it impossible for the British government to strike or ratify a deal with the EU.
I don't think there is a need for compromise between the remainers and the hardline leavers in the Tory Party nor do I think it is possible.
The 50 or so hardline leavers (the Rees-Mogg mob) are actually impotent. They don't have the votes to drive hardline legislation nor derail soft Brexit. Nor do they have the votes to win a non confidence vote on May. So they make a lot of noise instead.
In the end, I don't think they will vote to derail Brexit, even if it's not their preferred version of Brexit.
I think I would be speaking for most when I say 'what a mess'
There is no immediate way through this but compromise is inevitable.
Both hard remainers and leavers will not get all they want
On the contrary, without a compromise we crash out of the EU with no deal. The hard Leavers therefore have no incentive to compromise.
If they hold off a leadership challenge to May until a bit later in the process they may make it impossible for the British government to strike or ratify a deal with the EU.
I don't think there is a need for compromise between the remainers and the hardline leavers in the Tory Party nor do I think it is possible.
The 50 or so hardline leavers (the Rees-Mogg mob) are actually impotent. They don't have the votes to drive hardline legislation nor derail soft Brexit. Nor do they have the votes to win a non confidence vote on May. So they make a lot of noise instead.
The worry is though that their constant bleating about 'betrayal' means that whatever clusterf*** mess we finally end up with will end up being blamed on the elite of judges, civil servants, treasury etc etc who didn't deliver the ideal Brexit and thus sow seeds for years of serious conflict and divide in this country.
Re Andrew Marr, I suppose no-one wants to be the person to tell him he’s not up to it. Not exactly an enviable task.
He really lost it when he asked McDonnell if he would like to see the video of his verbal abuse of Esther McVey and did not show it when McDonnell told him no. Quite unbelievable
Really surprised by the83% negative poll for Gove. Everyone I know (Con, Lab, LibDem) thinks he's doing a great job. Shows the danger of extrapolating from the people you know.
Even when he is doing the right thing, his manner is immensely smug and annoying.
Gove is cursed with that ultimate loser in politics: a face even his friends want to punch.
What a slippery duplicitous man Dominic Grieve has become. He’s not calling for a second referendum, but simultaneously wants people to have the chance to change their mind. He also thinks it’s a ‘conundrum’ that Parliament has been asked to do something that most MPs and Lords don’t want to. It’s not a conundrum; it’s democracy.
Oh! I thought it was a cheating fraud. Only made right because Mrs May set up a kangaroo court to declare the DUP innocent.
If you Conservatives consider that to be democracy, Mr Blue, not everybody does.
So the sooner the result of the Referendum gets overturned the better.
What a slippery duplicitous man Dominic Grieve has become. He’s not calling for a second referendum, but simultaneously wants people to have the chance to change their mind. He also thinks it’s a ‘conundrum’ that Parliament has been asked to do something that most MPs and Lords don’t want to. It’s not a conundrum; it’s democracy.
Oh! I thought it was a cheating fraud. Only made right because Mrs May set up a kangaroo court to declare the DUP innocent.
If you Conservatives consider that to be democracy, Mr Blue, not everybody does.
So the sooner the result of the Referendum gets overturned the better.
What a slippery duplicitous man Dominic Grieve has become. He’s not calling for a second referendum, but simultaneously wants people to have the chance to change their mind. He also thinks it’s a ‘conundrum’ that Parliament has been asked to do something that most MPs and Lords don’t want to. It’s not a conundrum; it’s democracy.
Oh! I thought it was a cheating fraud. Only made right because Mrs May set up a kangaroo court to declare the DUP innocent.
If you Conservatives consider that to be democracy, Mr Blue, not everybody does.
So the sooner the result of the Referendum gets overturned the better.
But of course the story itself is nonsense. How could Johnson Gove and Mogg be planning a "coup". They simply dont have the support of Tory MPs to launch it (I am sure the story isnt suggesting that the trio is planning a literal, ie a violent seizure of power).
Johnson and his pals can put their heads together over drinks in the Commons bar and froth bitterly into their whiskeys, but that doesnt mean they have the support or clout to carry out their "dream".
Its more journalistic drama -a bit like the Sun story earlier this week about a government minister about to denounce Theresa May. It didnt happen did it?
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
Yes Mosley was a Labour MP for a while, but he was actually elected as a Conservative. Not sure either fact is particularly relevant to the debate, but I wonder why you would mention one and not the other?
Because I didn't know...
According to wiki he was originally elected in 1918 as a Tory at the age of 21, but by 1922 (it doesn't say when) he had resigned the whip and successfully defended his seat as an independent against the Tories in 1922 and 1923.He joined Labour in March 1924, was elected as a Labour MP in 1926, and was a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1929-31.
Based on that it seems fair to characterise him as a Labour politician despite his youthful folly
Well youthful folly does sound like a good excuse. Who hasn't had a funny turn and ended up getting elected to parliament when they were young and carefree? At least he didn't try and start a revolution in a beer hall.
But seriously, no it isn't fair to characterise him as a primarily Labour politician. He actually joined the ILP when it was still outside the mainstream Labour Party, and resigned from the party when it became clear he wouldn't get a ministerial seat. He founded the New Party immediately on resigning. He joined the Fascists a few years later. So he managed to belong at one time or another to 5 different parties, one of which he founded himself. The only reason for dwelling on his time in the Labour Party is to reinforce the notion that many people enjoy indulging in that there is some kind of standard pathway whereby socialists end up as fascists.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
I think I would be speaking for most when I say 'what a mess'
There is no immediate way through this but compromise is inevitable.
Both hard remainers and leavers will not get all they want
On the contrary, without a compromise we crash out of the EU with no deal. The hard Leavers therefore have no incentive to compromise.
If they hold off a leadership challenge to May until a bit later in the process they may make it impossible for the British government to strike or ratify a deal with the EU.
The hard leavers are in a minority in Parliament
That minority doesn't matter as long as no deal leave is the default.
As long as May survives, the remain / deal majority simply have the choice of shoring her up sufficiently for a deal to be reached. For all the talk of sabotage the government have not yet lost a vote in such a way as to prevent a deal from moving forward, but that has so far been with a good level of support from both wings of her party. If she drops the Tory right, even if she survives, cross party lines will need to be much stronger to move her forward.
If the Brexiteers take over, for which they only need enough backing within the Tory party, the challenge to remainers of no deal is greater still. The Brexiteers simply sit it out and the Remainers (Deal no longer existing as a tribe if there is no executive negotiating a deal) have to make the running, cross party. Are Remain Tories prepared to VoNC, even as they see Corbyn opposite them, do Labour Remainers push for Remain above no deal, even as Corbyn sits it out for a GE, similarly do the SNP help or sit on the side as it is all grist to the independence mill, is there any leader who will pull the Remain call together in the face of No Deal (my PM Vince Cable scenari, but feel free to imagine others.)
If all the above looks improbable, then it is, and that is the great strength in the hand of hard leavers. But none of it is totally impossible in extremis, there is a very narrow path down which a hard leave move begets a hard remain as the only avoidance option and the compromise that most would like to see now flies out of the window.
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
Surely you must agree that daring to criticise Treasury models or the performance of taxpayer funded senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?..
The argument is unpersuasive that a third Brexit referendum won't happen because there's no time.
In 2015, the Greek government agreed a bailout with the EC, ECB and IMF. Two days later Alexis Tsipras said it would be put to a referendum. Holding the plebiscite was ratified in parliament the next day, and it was held a week later. If Greece can do it, so can Britain. Nobody will believe the British political class if they respond to an internet petition calling for a referendum with a Remain option carrying, ooh, say 18 million signatures, more than the number of voters who put their cross by Leave in 2016. If politicians and experts say "sorry, there's no time", they WILL be faced with a petition. If they stick to their guns, effectively saying "we appreciate what you're saying, and it's great to see all you lovely people being so interested in politics, but sorry, our hands are tied", there will be almighty trouble in the land.
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
Surely you must agree that daring to criticise Treasury models or the performance of taxpayer funded senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?....
The perfect example of a statement from a Brexit loon :-D
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
Surely you must agree that daring to criticise Treasury models or the performance of taxpayer funded senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?....
As you well know, the complaint is not that the models are criticised but that the integrity of those compiling them is being impugned with absolutely no evidence for doing so. And as you also well know, the "stab in the back" myth long predated Hitler's ascent to power.
You seem to be participating in a straw man convention.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Corbyn bringing Democracy back as promised.
For too long, many people have been disenfranchised. Finally, holocaust deniers and terrorist sympathisers have a natural home again.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Corbyn bringing Democracy back as promised.
For too long, many people have been disenfranchised. Finally, holocaust deniers and terrorist sympathisers have a natural home again.
Was a time being a holocaust denier might get you banned from pb.com....
Let's imagine that May advocates a Brexit deal towards the flaccid end of the spectrum. There would in all likelihood be a majority in Parliament to support the deal, but perhaps not amongst Tory MPs.
So if May then lost a confidence vote of her MPs but won a confidence vote in the House of Commons (Labour supporting her for fear of a Moggite version of Brexit), could she legitimately remain as PM to see through the Brexit deal?
Let's imagine that May advocates a Brexit deal towards the flaccid end of the spectrum. There would in all likelihood be a majority in Parliament to support the deal, but perhaps not amongst Tory MPs.
So if May then lost a confidence vote of her MPs but won a confidence vote in the House of Commons (Labour supporting her for fear of a Moggite version of Brexit), could she legitimately remain as PM to see through the Brexit deal?
You would have to lobotomise Corbyn to have him support a Tory PM.
Let's imagine that May advocates a Brexit deal towards the flaccid end of the spectrum. There would in all likelihood be a majority in Parliament to support the deal, but perhaps not amongst Tory MPs.
So if May then lost a confidence vote of her MPs but won a confidence vote in the House of Commons (Labour supporting her for fear of a Moggite version of Brexit), could she legitimately remain as PM to see through the Brexit deal?
On your first point, I think most conservative MPs would support a flaccid Brexit. A lot of them are keeping quiet about Brexit because they want it dealt with and to go away. Whether they would support Theresa May to continue as their leader is another matter. They have the awful dilemma add whether to stick with an incompetent with no vision or energy or to roll the dice and get an incompetent with vision and energy that is deranged.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
Yes Mosley was a Labour MP for a while, but he was actually elected as a Conservative. Not sure either fact is particularly relevant to the debate, but I wonder why you would mention one and not the other?
Because I didn't know...
According to wiki he was originally elected in 1918 as a Tory at the age of 21, but by 1922 (it doesn't say when) he had resigned the whip and successfully defended his seat as an independent against the Tories in 1922 and 1923.He joined Labour in March 1924, was elected as a Labour MP in 1926, and was a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1929-31.
Based on that it seems fair to characterise him as a Labour politician despite his youthful folly
You didn't know? Is that another area of politics that doesn't interest you?
But of course the story itself is nonsense. How could Johnson Gove and Mogg be planning a "coup". They simply dont have the support of Tory MPs to launch it (I am sure the story isnt suggesting that the trio is planning a literal, ie a violent seizure of power).
Johnson and his pals can put their heads together over drinks in the Commons bar and froth bitterly into their whiskeys, but that doesnt mean they have the support or clout to carry out their "dream".
Its more journalistic drama -a bit like the Sun story earlier this week about a government minister about to denounce Theresa May. It didnt happen did it?
And it wont happen next week either.
Other way round. They do have the support to launch a leadership challenge but they cannot be sure of its outcome, especially if they are not working together. That is one reason for doubting the story: nothing has happened.
The government, Cabinet and Prime Minister are trapped in the same unstable equilibrium since June. Any of the big beasts can trigger a challenge but none of them can be sure of winning the subsequent election. If a sizeable group came together behind one champion, the arithmetic changes. That is what the headline piece is about. But nothing has happened so I'm inclined to write it off as speculation by an opponent; mischief-making rather than kite-flying.
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
Surely you must agree that daring to criticise Treasury models or the performance of taxpayer funded senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?....
As you well know, the complaint is not that the models are criticised but that the integrity of those compiling them is being impugned with absolutely no evidence for doing so. And as you also well know, the "stab in the back" myth long predated Hitler's ascent to power.
You seem to be participating in a straw man convention.
Suggesting that Treasury models may not be accurate based on precedent - of which there is a lot of precedent - or because the assumptions made about the trading and tariff arrangements possible made are limited in scope in the models is a perfectly rational comment and criticism.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
As leaving the EU proves not to be the cake walk they promised, the Tory Brexit loons have so far blamed: 1. The BBC 2. The House of Commons 3. The House of Lords 4. The courts 5. The civil service 6. The EU 7. Remain voters 8. The Bank of England 9. British businesses 10. The Irish
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Is Labour a party of Holocaust deniers?
It's the nearest we have in mainstream politics.
Permitting just one destroys their credibility. If only it were the one.....
But of course the story itself is nonsense. How could Johnson Gove and Mogg be planning a "coup". They simply dont have the support of Tory MPs to launch it (I am sure the story isnt suggesting that the trio is planning a literal, ie a violent seizure of power).
Johnson and his pals can put their heads together over drinks in the Commons bar and froth bitterly into their whiskeys, but that doesnt mean they have the support or clout to carry out their "dream".
Its more journalistic drama -a bit like the Sun story earlier this week about a government minister about to denounce Theresa May. It didnt happen did it?
And it wont happen next week either.
Other way round. They do have the support to launch a leadership challenge but they cannot be sure of its outcome, especially if they are not working together. That is one reason for doubting the story: nothing has happened.
The government, Cabinet and Prime Minister are trapped in the same unstable equilibrium since June. Any of the big beasts can trigger a challenge but none of them can be sure of winning the subsequent election. If a sizeable group came together behind one champion, the arithmetic changes. That is what the headline piece is about. But nothing has happened so I'm inclined to write it off as speculation by an opponent; mischief-making rather than kite-flying.
But they dont have the numbers to seize power. They might have the numbers (48) to launch a vote of confidence in May, but it is very likely that she would win it. The Majority of Tory MPs would almost certainly prefer may to stay PM until after Brexit, and they certainly would not want her replaced by the unholy trio of Johnson, Gove and Mogg.
Almost all of the posts on PB are through the lens of people's identity politics: Left v Right, UK vs EU, Scotland vs UK. That's because identity is deeply personal and we all feel strongly about that. I get that.
The problem is that it allows us to ignore the big issues we face. A society built on consumption driven by personal debt. House prices way too high for the young. Government spending fuelled by deficit borrowing that has taken our debt to wartime levels - while we are not even in a recession. Almost a 50:50 ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers plus a real pensions crisis. An insatiable NHS that we will never be able to fund enough. Greedy business constraining government policy. News organisations making news priorities not reporting them. Bread and circuses.
Everything comes down the the key problem - we are consuming wealth faster than we make it. That cannot go on. Every single society in human history that has done this has failed. Every one. No exceptions. We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Is Labour a party of Holocaust deniers?
The faction currently in charge of the Labour party is antisemitic
Is he talking about the Treasury forecasting department ?
The alternative view put forward by Minford & Co and endorsed by JRM, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in waiting, appears quite reasonable by comparison to the HM Treasury and OBR forecasts:
" We promised £350 million for the NHS so we must deliver it. This is £18.2 billion a year, just under half the Brexit growth dividend from 2025, but the money is needed sooner so in 2019/2020 the cash boost needs to be there as far as possible. "
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
Surely you must agree that daring to criticise Treasury models or the performance of taxpayer funded senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?....
As you well know, the complaint is not that the models are criticised but that the integrity of those compiling them is being impugned with absolutely no evidence for doing so. And as you also well know, the "stab in the back" myth long predated Hitler's ascent to power.
You seem to be participating in a straw man convention.
Suggesting that Treasury models may not be accurate based on precedent - of which there is a lot of precedent - or because the assumptions made about the trading and tariff arrangements possible made are limited in scope in the models is a perfectly rational comment and criticism.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
You again sidestep the point that the complaint is not that the model is queried but that the Treasury are being accused of fiddling the figures. And you again sidestep the point that the “stab in the back” myth predated Nazi Germany.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
As has been pointed out earlier, it's a bit silly for Liam to threaten to resign: our staying in the Customs Union will make his role redundant anyway. But the sad thing for Liam is that virtually no one - most hard Leavers included - will mourn his departure. This isn't all Liam's fault. The Hannanite 'free trade with all the world' vision was only ever a minor element within the British Eurosceptic movement - practically an eccentric niche. Most Leavers want us to start making and using our own shoes and motorcycles again instead of importing them from foreign hellholes, so trade deals with anywhere will only hinder that. Comfortable isolation is now the name of the game.
But of course the story itself is nonsense. How could Johnson Gove and Mogg be planning a "coup". They simply dont have the support of Tory MPs to launch it (I am sure the story isnt suggesting that the trio is planning a literal, ie a violent seizure of power).
Johnson and his pals can put their heads together over drinks in the Commons bar and froth bitterly into their whiskeys, but that doesnt mean they have the support or clout to carry out their "dream".
Its more journalistic drama -a bit like the Sun story earlier this week about a government minister about to denounce Theresa May. It didnt happen did it?
And it wont happen next week either.
Other way round. They do have the support to launch a leadership challenge but they cannot be sure of its outcome, especially if they are not working together. That is one reason for doubting the story: nothing has happened.
The government, Cabinet and Prime Minister are trapped in the same unstable equilibrium since June. Any of the big beasts can trigger a challenge but none of them can be sure of winning the subsequent election. If a sizeable group came together behind one champion, the arithmetic changes. That is what the headline piece is about. But nothing has happened so I'm inclined to write it off as speculation by an opponent; mischief-making rather than kite-flying.
But they dont have the numbers to seize power. They might have the numbers (48) to launch a vote of confidence in May, but it is very likely that she would win it. The Majority of Tory MPs would almost certainly prefer may to stay PM until after Brexit, and they certainly would not want her replaced by the unholy trio of Johnson, Gove and Mogg.
If Theresa May thought that, she could follow John Major's precedent and dish her opponents. It is very unlikely Theresa May would win a confidence vote. The aggregate of her rivals' supporters, added to the uncommitted who just see May as hapless, would crush her. The problem is that none of Gove, Hammond, Boris, Rudd or any of the other half dozen who see themselves as plausible contenders or caretakers can be sure of reaching Number 10, and would probably doom themselves for perpetuity. That is why we have an unstable equilibrium.
Almost all of the posts on PB are through the lens of people's identity politics: Left v Right, UK vs EU, Scotland vs UK. That's because identity is deeply personal and we all feel strongly about that. I get that.
The problem is that it allows us to ignore the big issues we face. A society built on consumption driven by personal debt. House prices way too high for the young. Government spending fuelled by deficit borrowing that has taken our debt to wartime levels - while we are not even in a recession. Almost a 50:50 ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers plus a real pensions crisis. An insatiable NHS that we will never be able to fund enough. Greedy business constraining government policy. News organisations making news priorities not reporting them. Bread and circuses.
Everything comes down the the key problem - we are consuming wealth faster than we make it. That cannot go on. Every single society in human history that has done this has failed. Every one. No exceptions. We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
Excellent post, @rcs1000 would be proud of you covering his day shift.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Is Labour a party of Holocaust deniers?
The faction currently in charge of the Labour party is antisemitic
Often wondered why we don't use the term Jew Hater
I've just watched the Andrew Marr show. Based on comments earlier in this thread I expected Marr to perform badly.
In fact he did some excellent interviews. He was very hard on Claire Kober (which is why some on here may have complained about him) but this enabled Kober to make some effective points about pragmatism versus ideology. His interview with Adams was excellent and so was the interview with Rudd. I thought Rudd did very well - much better than May. She can think on her feet, speaks with authority, and I easily can see her as a PM. An excellent show.
But of course the story itself is nonsense. How could Johnson Gove and Mogg be planning a "coup". They simply dont have the support of Tory MPs to launch it (I am sure the story isnt suggesting that the trio is planning a literal, ie a violent seizure of power).
Johnson and his pals can put their heads together over drinks in the Commons bar and froth bitterly into their whiskeys, but that doesnt mean they have the support or clout to carry out their "dream".
Its more journalistic drama -a bit like the Sun story earlier this week about a government minister about to denounce Theresa May. It didnt happen did it?
And it wont happen next week either.
Other way round. They do have the support to launch a leadership challenge but they cannot be sure of its outcome, especially if they are not working together. That is one reason for doubting the story: nothing has happened.
The government, Cabinet and Prime Minister are trapped in the same unstable equilibrium since June. Any of the big beasts can trigger a challenge but none of them can be sure of winning the subsequent election. If a sizeable group came together behind one champion, the arithmetic changes. That is what the headline piece is about. But nothing has happened so I'm inclined to write it off as speculation by an opponent; mischief-making rather than kite-flying.
But they dont have the numbers to seize power. They might have the numbers (48) to launch a vote of confidence in May, but it is very likely that she would win it. The Majority of Tory MPs would almost certainly prefer may to stay PM until after Brexit, and they certainly would not want her replaced by the unholy trio of Johnson, Gove and Mogg.
If Theresa May thought that, she could follow John Major's precedent and dish her opponents. It is very unlikely Theresa May would win a confidence vote. The aggregate of her rivals' supporters, added to the uncommitted who just see May as hapless, would crush her. The problem is that none of Gove, Hammond, Boris, Rudd or any of the other half dozen who see themselves as plausible contenders or caretakers can be sure of reaching Number 10, and would probably doom themselves for perpetuity. That is why we have an unstable equilibrium.
The majority who just think she is hapless would still vote for her in a confidence vote because they want her to continue until after Brexit, and they dont want Johnson and co.
Well youthful folly does sound like a good excuse. Who hasn't had a funny turn and ended up getting elected to parliament when they were young and carefree? At least he didn't try and start a revolution in a beer hall.
But seriously, no it isn't fair to characterise him as a primarily Labour politician. He actually joined the ILP when it was still outside the mainstream Labour Party, and resigned from the party when it became clear he wouldn't get a ministerial seat. He founded the New Party immediately on resigning. He joined the Fascists a few years later. So he managed to belong at one time or another to 5 different parties, one of which he founded himself. The only reason for dwelling on his time in the Labour Party is to reinforce the notion that many people enjoy indulging in that there is some kind of standard pathway whereby socialists end up as fascists.
Er, no. Your characterisation is wrong in key areas and highly misleading in others. He was elected in 1918 under the auspices of Robert Cecil and crossed the floor in 1920 over the actions of the Black and Tans. He joined the Labour Party in 1924 - a move that cost him his seat - and was promoted rapidly. He toured the country supporting efforts to sort out unemployment and donated lavishly from his private resources to help. His speeches were violent, intemperate, laced with the language of class warfare and Labour loyalists loved them. He was a minister outside the cabinet (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) from 1929 to 1930 and resigned not because he was unlikely to be promoted further but because the Cabinet rejected his proposals for dealing with unemployment.
Even after 1931 many in Labour were desperate to get him back to refill the void left by the annihilation of Henderson's shadow cabinet (Lloyd George was another option the rump of Labour MPs seriously considered as Chairman). It was his own decision to stay away, born of disillusionment that Labour did not fully commit to his (sarcasm alert) brilliant ideas that would build heaven on earth. Strangely many post War ideas including those of Bevan (who initially supported him) bear a striking resemblance to Mosley's in that memo.
So he was undoubtedly a Labour figure and trying to disown the influence the party has on him is merely silly. One final irony is that he turned to violence even before he embraced Fascism because his meetings kept being broken up by organised gangs of Socialists. That point seems to have an unfortunate resonance his weekend.
Edit - it is also worth remembering that of the six MPs who followed him, five were Labour (including his wife and John Beckett, who are the only ones I can remember off-hand) and only one Conservative.
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
Surely you must agree that daring to criticise Treasury models or the performance of taxpayer funded senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?....
As you well know, the complaint is not that the models are criticised but that the integrity of those compiling them is being impugned with absolutely no evidence for doing so. And as you also well know, the "stab in the back" myth long predated Hitler's ascent to power.
You seem to be participating in a straw man convention.
Suggesting that Treasury models may not be accurate based on precedent - of which there is a lot of precedent - or because the assumptions made about the trading and tariff arrangements possible made are limited in scope in the models is a perfectly rational comment and criticism.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
You again sidestep the point that the complaint is not that the model is queried but that the Treasury are being accused of fiddling the figures. And you again sidestep the point that the “stab in the back” myth predated Nazi Germany.
You’re only trashing your own integrity.
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
Well youthful folly does sound like a good excuse. Who hasn't had a funny turn and ended up getting elected to parliament when they were young and carefree? At least he didn't try and start a revolution in a beer hall.
But seriously, no it isn't fair to characterise him as a primarily Labour politician. He actually joined the ILP when it was still outside the mainstream Labour Party, and resigned from the party when it became clear he wouldn't get a ministerial seat. He founded the New Party immediately on resigning. He joined the Fascists a few years later. So he managed to belong at one time or another to 5 different parties, one of which he founded himself. The only reason for dwelling on his time in the Labour Party is to reinforce the notion that many people enjoy indulging in that there is some kind of standard pathway whereby socialists end up as fascists.
Er, no. Your characterisation is wrong in key areas and highly misleading in others. He was elected in 1918 under the auspices of Robert Cecil and crossed the floor in 1920 over the actions of the Black and Tans. He joined the Labour Party in 1924 - a move that cost him his seat - and was promoted rapidly. He toured the country supporting efforts to sort out unemployment and donated lavishly from his private resources to help. His speeches were violent, intemperate, laced with the language of class warfare and Labour loyalists loved them. He was a minister outside the cabinet (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) from 1929 to 1930 and resigned not because he was unlikely to be promoted further but because the Cabinet rejected his proposals for dealing with unemployment.
Even after 1931 many in Labour were desperate to get him back to refill the void left by the annihilation of Henderson's shadow cabinet (Lloyd George was another option the rump of Labour MPs seriously considered as Chairman). It was his own decision to stay away, born of disillusionment that Labour did not fully commit to his (sarcasm alert) brilliant ideas that would build heaven on earth. Strangely many post War ideas including those of Bevan (who initially supported him) bear a striking resemblance to Mosley's in that memo.
So he was undoubtedly a Labour figure and trying to disown the influence the party has on him is merely silly. One final irony is that he turned to violence even before he embraced Fascism because his meetings kept being broken up by organised gangs of Socialists. That point seems to have an unfortunate resonance his weekend.
No oner reminds me of Mosley more than Jeremy Corbyn -no one reminds me of his fascists more than his supporters.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Is Labour a party of Holocaust deniers?
The faction currently in charge of the Labour party is antisemitic
Often wondered why we don't use the term Jew Hater
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Is Labour a party of Holocaust deniers?
The faction currently in charge of the Labour party is antisemitic
Often wondered why we don't use the term Jew Hater
Didn't Joff once refer to Rod Crosby, in the dog days of RC's posting on here where the Nazism became increasingly overt, as 'the Jew baiter of Merseyside?'
But of course the story itself is nonsense. How could Johnson Gove and Mogg be planning a "coup". They simply dont have the support of Tory MPs to launch it (I am sure the story isnt suggesting that the trio is planning a literal, ie a violent seizure of power).
Johnson and his pals can put their heads together over drinks in the Commons bar and froth bitterly into their whiskeys, but that doesnt mean they have the support or clout to carry out their "dream".
Its more journalistic drama -a bit like the Sun story earlier this week about a government minister about to denounce Theresa May. It didnt happen did it?
And it wont happen next week either.
Other way round. They do have the support to launch a leadership challenge but they cannot be sure of its outcome, especially if they are not working together. That is one reason for doubting the story: nothing has happened.
The government, Cabinet and Prime Minister are trapped in the same unstable equilibrium since June. Any of the big beasts can trigger a challenge but none of them can be sure of winning the subsequent election. If a sizeable group came together behind one champion, the arithmetic changes. That is what the headline piece is about. But nothing has happened so I'm inclined to write it off as speculation by an opponent; mischief-making rather than kite-flying.
But they dont have the numbers to seize power. They might have the numbers (48) to launch a vote of confidence in May, but it is very likely that she would win it. The Majority of Tory MPs would almost certainly prefer may to stay PM until after Brexit, and they certainly would not want her replaced by the unholy trio of Johnson, Gove and Mogg.
If Theresa May thought that, she could follow John Major's precedent and dish her opponents. It is very unlikely Theresa May would win a confidence vote. The aggregate of her rivals' supporters, added to the uncommitted who just see May as hapless, would crush her. The problem is that none of Gove, Hammond, Boris, Rudd or any of the other half dozen who see themselves as plausible contenders or caretakers can be sure of reaching Number 10, and would probably doom themselves for perpetuity. That is why we have an unstable equilibrium.
The majority who just think she is hapless would still vote for her in a confidence vote because they want her to continue until after Brexit, and they dont want Johnson and co.
The PM does not share your confidence. The trouble is that the majority which does not want Boris is not the same as the majority which does not want Gove, or the majority that does not want JRM or Hammond, Rudd or Hunt.
Comments
I do wish the Rudd boosterism would stop. The membership will not go for her.
Sigh.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line
It is the most recent poll on this topic I could find.
I suspect Gove's ratings have improved since then, but moved to dire instead of appalling.
There is no immediate way through this but compromise is inevitable.
Both hard remainers and leavers will not get all they want
If they hold off a leadership challenge to May until a bit later in the process they may make it impossible for the British government to strike or ratify a deal with the EU.
To get all Machiavellian about it: perhaps the Boris/Gove have agreed to support a customs union position knowing full well that this might trigger the last few letters of no confidence and thus a contest.
The 50 or so hardline leavers (the Rees-Mogg mob) are actually impotent. They don't have the votes to drive hardline legislation nor derail soft Brexit. Nor do they have the votes to win a non confidence vote on May. So they make a lot of noise instead.
It would be like putting down a puppy.
If you Conservatives consider that to be democracy, Mr Blue, not everybody does.
So the sooner the result of the Referendum gets overturned the better.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/959850406284283904
https://twitter.com/WajidKhanMEP/status/960067093247832064
Johnson and his pals can put their heads together over drinks in the Commons bar and froth bitterly into their whiskeys, but that doesnt mean they have the support or clout to carry out their "dream".
Its more journalistic drama -a bit like the Sun story earlier this week about a government minister about to denounce Theresa May. It didnt happen did it?
And it wont happen next week either.
But seriously, no it isn't fair to characterise him as a primarily Labour politician. He actually joined the ILP when it was still outside the mainstream Labour Party, and resigned from the party when it became clear he wouldn't get a ministerial seat. He founded the New Party immediately on resigning. He joined the Fascists a few years later. So he managed to belong at one time or another to 5 different parties, one of which he founded himself. The only reason for dwelling on his time in the Labour Party is to reinforce the notion that many people enjoy indulging in that there is some kind of standard pathway whereby socialists end up as fascists.
Boris Johnson, Michael Gove or Jacob Rees Mogg will never be prime minister.
And neither will Jeremy Corbyn.
I will be right on all 3 counts.
The Titanic will sink.
As long as May survives, the remain / deal majority simply have the choice of shoring her up sufficiently for a deal to be reached. For all the talk of sabotage the government have not yet lost a vote in such a way as to prevent a deal from moving forward, but that has so far been with a good level of support from both wings of her party. If she drops the Tory right, even if she survives, cross party lines will need to be much stronger to move her forward.
If the Brexiteers take over, for which they only need enough backing within the Tory party, the challenge to remainers of no deal is greater still. The Brexiteers simply sit it out and the Remainers (Deal no longer existing as a tribe if there is no executive negotiating a deal) have to make the running, cross party. Are Remain Tories prepared to VoNC, even as they see Corbyn opposite them, do Labour Remainers push for Remain above no deal, even as Corbyn sits it out for a GE, similarly do the SNP help or sit on the side as it is all grist to the independence mill, is there any leader who will pull the Remain call together in the face of No Deal (my PM Vince Cable scenari, but feel free to imagine others.)
If all the above looks improbable, then it is, and that is the great strength in the hand of hard leavers. But none of it is totally impossible in extremis, there is a very narrow path down which a hard leave move begets a hard remain as the only avoidance option and the compromise that most would like to see now flies out of the window.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/03/brexit-civil-service-1930s-germany
In 2015, the Greek government agreed a bailout with the EC, ECB and IMF. Two days later Alexis Tsipras said it would be put to a referendum. Holding the plebiscite was ratified in parliament the next day, and it was held a week later. If Greece can do it, so can Britain. Nobody will believe the British political class if they respond to an internet petition calling for a referendum with a Remain option carrying, ooh, say 18 million signatures, more than the number of voters who put their cross by Leave in 2016. If politicians and experts say "sorry, there's no time", they WILL be faced with a petition. If they stick to their guns, effectively saying "we appreciate what you're saying, and it's great to see all you lovely people being so interested in politics, but sorry, our hands are tied", there will be almighty trouble in the land.
You seem to be participating in a straw man convention.
For too long, many people have been disenfranchised. Finally, holocaust deniers and terrorist sympathisers have a natural home again.
So if May then lost a confidence vote of her MPs but won a confidence vote in the House of Commons (Labour supporting her for fear of a Moggite version of Brexit), could she legitimately remain as PM to see through the Brexit deal?
The government, Cabinet and Prime Minister are trapped in the same unstable equilibrium since June. Any of the big beasts can trigger a challenge but none of them can be sure of winning the subsequent election. If a sizeable group came together behind one champion, the arithmetic changes. That is what the headline piece is about. But nothing has happened so I'm inclined to write it off as speculation by an opponent; mischief-making rather than kite-flying.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
Permitting just one destroys their credibility. If only it were the one.....
The problem is that it allows us to ignore the big issues we face. A society built on consumption driven by personal debt. House prices way too high for the young. Government spending fuelled by deficit borrowing that has taken our debt to wartime levels - while we are not even in a recession. Almost a 50:50 ratio of taxpayers to non-taxpayers plus a real pensions crisis. An insatiable NHS that we will never be able to fund enough. Greedy business constraining government policy. News organisations making news priorities not reporting them. Bread and circuses.
Everything comes down the the key problem - we are consuming wealth faster than we make it. That cannot go on. Every single society in human history that has done this has failed. Every one. No exceptions. We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
" We promised £350 million for the NHS so we must deliver it. This is £18.2 billion a year, just under half the Brexit growth dividend from 2025, but the money is needed sooner so in 2019/2020 the cash boost needs to be there as far as possible. "
https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EFT-Budget-for-Brexit-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-speech.pdf
Thats 5 names, and none of the other 4 will be PM.
You’re only trashing your own integrity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-42864916/who-or-what-defines-you-as-a-woman
In fact he did some excellent interviews. He was very hard on Claire Kober (which is why some on here may have complained about him) but this enabled Kober to make some effective points about pragmatism versus ideology. His interview with Adams was excellent and so was the interview with Rudd. I thought Rudd did very well - much better than May. She can think on her feet, speaks with authority, and I easily can see her as a PM. An excellent show.
Even after 1931 many in Labour were desperate to get him back to refill the void left by the annihilation of Henderson's shadow cabinet (Lloyd George was another option the rump of Labour MPs seriously considered as Chairman). It was his own decision to stay away, born of disillusionment that Labour did not fully commit to his (sarcasm alert) brilliant ideas that would build heaven on earth. Strangely many post War ideas including those of Bevan (who initially supported him) bear a striking resemblance to Mosley's in that memo.
So he was undoubtedly a Labour figure and trying to disown the influence the party has on him is merely silly. One final irony is that he turned to violence even before he embraced Fascism because his meetings kept being broken up by organised gangs of Socialists. That point seems to have an unfortunate resonance his weekend.
Edit - it is also worth remembering that of the six MPs who followed him, five were Labour (including his wife and John Beckett, who are the only ones I can remember off-hand) and only one Conservative.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.