Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis: Brexit – What Does “No Deal”Actually Mean?

1356

Comments

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Woodcock's resignation from Labour was inevitable but still significant.

    To lose one MP....

    Suspect a bunch of Labour moderates are hanging around to fight Brexit then departing the stage.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited July 2018

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Can anyone explain this one?

    'Judge says if Police hadn’t given info to BBC they feared their investigation would be damaged'
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
    Tom Watson not on the case?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited July 2018

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    The background is that the police and the BBC worked together in advance of the raid, to the point that there was a BBC helicopter overhead as the police went in and the news were running it live like it was OJ Simpson, alongside “Cliff in Child Porn Raid” headlines.

    He wasn’t there, no evidence was in the house and Sir Cliff was found completely innocent and not charged with any crime.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    I think its the "and then" that is not the case.

    The house was raided. The BBC were there from the off.

    Why?

    It relates to this: https://news.sky.com/story/officer-reveals-why-he-told-bbc-about-cliff-richard-raid-11333890
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    TGOHF said:

    Woodcock's resignation from Labour was inevitable but still significant.

    To lose one MP....

    Suspect a bunch of Labour moderates are hanging around to fight Brexit then departing the stage.

    I think, given all prior evidence, they will always find excuses until the mandatory reselections come in. And then they're toast anyway. Or find a way to convert/repent.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    edited July 2018
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:
    Good on him, finally someone with the balls to walk away from the antisemitic party.

    Hope the Tories and LDs stand aside and let him run as an independent against Labour at the election, if we have one soon.
    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,261
    edited July 2018
    GIN1138 said:
    It may be the opening for someone else but it won't be for Boris. He's finished, he's been exposed for what he is. Nobody in their right mind believes he is 'leader of the country' material.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
    Tom Watson not on the case?
    Leveson relates to the Press. The BBC is already regulated by Ofcom so no point them bothering with it since all they want is similar for newspapers.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    Hopefully it'll put a stop to the police going on these fishing expeditions. As it stands any crackpot can report a celebrity to the police who then report it to the media who put on a grand show which includes cameras as they break into the celebs house- in Cliffs case hellicopters because he lives behind a wall and he had large picture windows.

    ....within a few hours everyone knows about the arrest (and where they live and what their house looks like). Then anyone who might have met him and fancies some publicity remembers they've also been assaulted . It's a stain on any concept of natural justice
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Artist said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:
    Good on him, finally someone with the balls to walk away from the antisemitic party.

    Hope the Tories and LDs stand aside and let him run as an independent against Labour at the election, if we have one soon.
    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
    Yes, I’d forgotten just how marginal the seat was, only 209 between Lab and Con. it’s a pretty certain Con gain now with Woodcock gone. There’s no way he’ll get a free run.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
    Tom Watson not on the case?
    Leveson relates to the Press. The BBC is already regulated by Ofcom so no point them bothering with it since all they want is similar for newspapers.
    Odd, he is very vocal about sky news issues.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited July 2018
    After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    TGOHF said:

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    Lets see if the Leveson luvvies are so vocal over this..
    Tom Watson not on the case?
    Leveson relates to the Press. The BBC is already regulated by Ofcom so no point them bothering with it since all they want is similar for newspapers.
    Leveson 2 goes way beyond anything Ofcom can do. It is the first step towards political control of the press.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    Mother is very happy BTW - She never believed the allegations from the outset. :D
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    GIN1138 said:

    After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.

    I agree but I don't think it will happen because of the zeal of the campaigners who think naming people helps to encourage others to come forward with allegations.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited July 2018
    AndyJS said:

    GIN1138 said:

    After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.

    I agree but I don't think it will happen because of the zeal of the campaigners who think naming people helps to encourage others to come forward with allegations.
    Well if the name is revealed at the point of charge people can still come forward... But allowing people to retain anonymity up to the moment of charge means the Police have got to get the investigation to the point on it's own merits.

    Moreover given the BBC have proved the media can't be trusted with the existing law as it is it would provide safe-guards against innocent people having their reputations trashed by malicious lies, fantasists, attention seekers and money-grabbers...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited July 2018
    The police / cps record on all this celeb paedo stuff really needs investigating. In addition to the nick stuff, we had William roache case where the evidence was beyond flawed eg houses he never had access to, cars he never owned, incidents allegedly happening when he was on set all day...also plod / CPS cocked up rolf Harris case and he only got convicted because a member of the public volunteered evidence half way through trial.

    And they are just for starters, there has been a long list of incompetence.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    edited July 2018
    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.

    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    GIN1138 said:

    After this Cliff Richard fiasco I think we need a new law where people under suspicion/investigation by the Police are entitled to anonymity until the point where they are Charged at which point their name can be revealed into the public domain.

    Yes, there’s an awfully fine line to be drawn between allowing justice to be open and seeing a completely unfounded allegation ruin someone’s life and reputation.

    We also need to look at the statute of limitations and CPS guidance on minor historical offences. The ‘offence’ of an overly-familiar hug in a public place 30 or 40 years ago shouldn’t be the basis of a prosecution today.

    Meanwhile the Met have 90 murders so far this year if they’re short of things to be looking at.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited July 2018

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.

    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)

    I remember canvassing the 2015 elections in the far north of England. I had Labour voters (metaphorically) frothing at the mouth at a Miliband doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon. Not sure if she is still toxic out of Scotland....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,952
    TGOHF said:

    Woodcock's resignation from Labour was inevitable but still significant.

    To lose one MP....

    Suspect a bunch of Labour moderates are hanging around to fight Brexit then departing the stage.

    To fight Brexit how, exactly? When their party leader is Brexit's bessy mate.....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    AndyJS said:

    Yet another House of Commons voting cock-up:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44867866

    "An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.

    Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.

    This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.

    But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."

    I am sure even you do not believe it was a Tory cock-up. He only voted on the two votes which were supposed to be close but did not vote on the others.

    Basically, Tories cannot be trusted
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    edited July 2018

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.

    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)

    So your "Centre" Party is going to go around England saying "vote for us we are going to break up the UK."
    Do you believe that to be the "centre" position?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited July 2018

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.

    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
    So your "Centre" Party is going to go around England saying "vote for us we are going to break up the UK."
    Do you believe that to be the "centre" position?
    All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.

    The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!

    And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    edited July 2018

    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
    Honest question - do you think Soubry, Bebb, Wollaston et al would fare better at a subsequent election if they had been kicked out by May, or if they had left of their own accord? I honestly don't know the answer.

    Sandpit, I did actually put an SNP poster in my (Oxfordshire) window at the 2015 election just to troll the local Tories (I'm not remotely Scottish). Amusingly Isabel Oakeshott saw it, tweeted a picture, and the Cybernats loved it...
  • GreenHeronGreenHeron Posts: 148

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)

    I'm not sure what is centrist about overarching loyalty to the EU and wanting to effectively overturn the Referendum result. This position is not without support (albeit minority support) but it is an extreme position in the same way that proponents of a WTO exit are at the other extreme. And this is why I expect any such "centrist party" is doomed to failure- because their view of a central position bears little resemblance to that of the voters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,050

    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
    Deselection seems quite popular with Tories, much more so than Labour.

    Purge the counter revolutionaries and the Kulaks!
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282
    notme said:

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
    I remember canvassing the 2015 elections in the far north of England. I had Labour voters (metaphorically) frothing at the mouth at a Miliband doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon. Not sure if she is still toxic out of Scotland....

    On that, I think that like most things, Brexit has upended the calculation - and your views will largely be dictated by your views on Brexit. If you think a hard no deal Brexit is a remotely sane option then they are nefarious Celts defying the will of the people. If it's self-destructive madness they are at least an adult in a room filled with lunatic Mogglodytes..

    Soubry herself is an example - in 2015 she'd have been on the telly at a moment's notice to push the 'Coalition of Chaos' line. Now she views a similar arrangement as our least bad option.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
    Deselection seems quite popular with Tories, much more so than Labour.

    Purge the counter revolutionaries and the Kulaks!
    Any MP who hands government to Corbyn knowingly, as happened last night, should be deselected.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
    Deselection seems quite popular with Tories, much more so than Labour.

    Purge the counter revolutionaries and the Kulaks!
    Comme Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MJW said:

    Soubry herself is an example - in 2015 she'd have been on the telly at a moment's notice to push the 'Coalition of Chaos' line. Now she views a similar arrangement as our least bad option.

    And she would be correct in both cases :smile:
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
    Honest question - do you think Soubry, Bebb, Wollaston et al would fare better at a subsequent election if they had been kicked out by May, or if they had left of their own accord? I honestly don't know the answer.

    Sandpit, I did actually put an SNP poster in my (Oxfordshire) window at the 2015 election just to troll the local Tories (I'm not remotely Scottish). Amusingly Isabel Oakeshott saw it, tweeted a picture, and the Cybernats loved it...
    Bebb is very marginal
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 438
    TGOHF said:


    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.

    Yes, she talks far too much common sense to remain for much longer in what has become of the Conservative Party. I wish she'd defect to us... but I don't think she ever will.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Scott_P said:
    What for and it is the summer recess on tuesday
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    The police / cps record on all this celeb paedo stuff really needs investigating. In addition to the nick stuff, we had William roache case where the evidence was beyond flawed eg houses he never had access to, cars he never owned, incidents allegedly happening when he was on set all day...also plod / CPS cocked up rolf Harris case and he only got convicted because a member of the public volunteered evidence half way through trial.

    And they are just for starters, there has been a long list of incompetence.

    The Nick stuff should see Tom Watson sweating much more than normal.

    It seems no coincidence that the Tory rumours surfaced just as Lord Janner's case was coming to court. No coincidence at all.

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited July 2018
    currystar said:

    I see inflation has stayed at 2.4% below expectations. So we now have rising wage growth, low inflation and full employment. Vote Labour!!!!

    Fake news.

    CPI for June 2018 is 2.3% not 2.4%

    See https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

    Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.

    Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:


    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.

    Yes, she talks far too much common sense to remain for much longer in what has become of the Conservative Party. I wish she'd defect to us... but I don't think she ever will.

    She sees the EU as more important than the Union of the United Kingdom.

    She won't fight the next election as an official Conservative and Unionist party candidate.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    What for and it is the summer recess on tuesday

    https://twitter.com/amberdebotton/status/1019524348011536385
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited July 2018
    The split on the Brexit right is currently exemplified by Paul Goodman promoting the idea of "temporarily" joining the EEA out of desperation...

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-conservative-brexit-choice-seek-to-park-the-uk-in-the-eea-under-a-new-tory-leader-or-press-on.html

    ... while Tim Montgomerie denounces everyone including Thatcher for being EU stooges.
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1019212013115969537
    https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1019474294198423552
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1019478470655660032
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited July 2018

    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
    Honest question - do you think Soubry, Bebb, Wollaston et al would fare better at a subsequent election if they had been kicked out by May, or if they had left of their own accord? I honestly don't know the answer.

    Sandpit, I did actually put an SNP poster in my (Oxfordshire) window at the 2015 election just to troll the local Tories (I'm not remotely Scottish). Amusingly Isabel Oakeshott saw it, tweeted a picture, and the Cybernats loved it...
    That’s quite funny, but the Conservative poster of Ed Miliband in Alex Salmond’s pocket in 2015 was probably the difference between getting the majority and not. It wouldn’t work with Corbyn and Sturgeon in quite the same way though, depending as it did on the wider perceptions of the individuals involved.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sandpit said:

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.

    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
    So your "Centre" Party is going to go around England saying "vote for us we are going to break up the UK."
    Do you believe that to be the "centre" position?
    All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.

    The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!

    And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
    They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.

    “Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.

    But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Scott_P said:

    What for and it is the summer recess on tuesday

    https://twitter.com/amberdebotton/status/1019524348011536385
    Thanks for that
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited July 2018
    TGOHF said:

    She sees the EU as more important than the Union of the United Kingdom.

    She won't fight the next election as an official Conservative and Unionist party candidate.

    Bollocks.

    Brexit is a threat to the Union, not the EU. The headbangers will get their dream of Little England, unencumbered by any pesky foreigners...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
    50-50 whether Dan Johnson gets fired or appointed special correspondent for chicken farming in the Outer Hebrides. His manager will get fired
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    The BBC moaning about Cliff Richard verdict. They were just wrong and need to accept the verdict
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:


    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    She should be expelled from the party for this nonsense.
    Deselected along with Guto Bebb
    Deselection seems quite popular with Tories, much more so than Labour.

    Purge the counter revolutionaries and the Kulaks!
    Any MP who hands government to Corbyn knowingly, as happened last night, should be deselected.
    But it would not have had that effect because the government would have won any Confidence Vote called. Were he to vote against the Government on that , I would agree that deselection would be justified - but that strikes me as most unlikely.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742
    edited July 2018

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.

    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)

    I noticed that as well.

    Doubt it myself (the loose alliance thing), but it would be hugely entertaining. Of course there's polling that suggests that Brexit true believers would see the loss of Scotland (& NI) as a price worth paying for EU departure, so extremists may be more philosophical than one might assume.

    edit: what am I thinking, of course they wouldn't!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    She sees the EU as more important than the Union of the United Kingdom.

    She won't fight the next election as an official Conservative and Unionist party candidate.

    Bollocks.

    Brexit is a threat to the Union, not the EU. The headbangers will get their dream of Little England, unencumbered by any pesky foreigners...
    She is cuddling up to the SNP - a party with a single aim. To break up the Uk. She's beyond help.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The BBC moaning about Cliff Richard verdict. They were just wrong and need to accept the verdict

    They saw how ready an audience Vote Leave got yesterday for their disingenuous defences and no doubt took a leaf from their book.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    The police / cps record on all this celeb paedo stuff really needs investigating. In addition to the nick stuff, we had William roache case where the evidence was beyond flawed eg houses he never had access to, cars he never owned, incidents allegedly happening when he was on set all day...also plod / CPS cocked up rolf Harris case and he only got convicted because a member of the public volunteered evidence half way through trial.

    And they are just for starters, there has been a long list of incompetence.

    The Nick stuff should see Tom Watson sweating much more than normal.

    It seems no coincidence that the Tory rumours surfaced just as Lord Janner's case was coming to court. No coincidence at all.
    Given all we see about the Cliff Richard case and many others, it’s amazing that “Nick” can be charged with numerous offences of deception yet still not be allowed to be named by the press.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    The BBC moaning about Cliff Richard verdict. They were just wrong and need to accept the verdict

    Well, they can seek permission to appeal. Having only skimmed the judgment I don't know if they will get it or not, but it's very long so I'm sure they can find an appeal point in there somewhere if they look hard enough.

    What strikes me as particularly concerning is the judge's comments on the BBC's witnesses. They all come across as being more concerned with protecting their own and the corporation's backs than being candid with the court. That's the kind of thinking that got them into the whole mess with Saville, Hall, Harris & co in the first place. Clearly they've learned nothing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:

    “I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
    The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.

    A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.

    There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
    I'm not sure what is centrist about overarching loyalty to the EU and wanting to effectively overturn the Referendum result. This position is not without support (albeit minority support) but it is an extreme position in the same way that proponents of a WTO exit are at the other extreme. And this is why I expect any such "centrist party" is doomed to failure- because their view of a central position bears little resemblance to that of the voters.

    Running with the idea, you might get the sort of arrangements that occurred from 1918 -1931. Assuming a sort of Coalition of Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP, rebel Conservatives and rebel Labour, they'd mostly give each other a clear run in the constituencies which they held (probably some local parties would rebel and field candidates) while putting up agreed candidates in seats held by official Labour and Conservative candidates. I'd still expect official Labour and Conservatives to win the vast majority of seats though, as First Past the Post benefits parties with concentrated support.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    currystar said:

    I see inflation has stayed at 2.4% below expectations. So we now have rising wage growth, low inflation and full employment. Vote Labour!!!!

    Fake news.

    CPI for June 2018 is 2.3% not 2.4%

    See https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

    Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.

    Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
    The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TGOHF said:



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
    At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742

    As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit.

    The Mayans were all about human sacrifices and predictions of the end of the world weren't they?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit.

    The Mayans were all about human sacrifices and predictions of the end of the world weren't they?
    Nothing has changed.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
    50-50 whether Dan Johnson gets fired or appointed special correspondent for chicken farming in the Outer Hebrides. His manager will get fired
    I will believe it when I see it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited July 2018
    Mr. Divvie, wasn't that the Aztecs?

    Edited extra bit: really not my areas, so I could be wrong, of course.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
    At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
    Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.

    Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    Mr. Divvie, wasn't that the Aztecs?

    Edited extra bit: really not my areas, so I could be wrong, of course.

    Mr Dancer, it was both. The Aztecs were somewhat more prodigious, admittedly.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
    At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
    Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.

    Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
    Britain’s relationship with the EU is likely to be the dominant theme of British politics for the foreseeable future. Whatever way forward is eventually selected, it will command the support of at best a third of the population.

    Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Artist said:



    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.

    A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)

    That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,555
    Margrethe Vestager might be worth more to the EU than Britain is, at this rate...
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44858238
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Rex, yeah, I have vague memories of reading they buggered their own demographics by killing so many of their own people.

    Loonies. I look forward to enhancing my education when/if I play the next Tomb Raider game.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,050
    currystar said:

    currystar said:

    I see inflation has stayed at 2.4% below expectations. So we now have rising wage growth, low inflation and full employment. Vote Labour!!!!

    Fake news.

    CPI for June 2018 is 2.3% not 2.4%

    See https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

    Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.

    Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
    The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
    Yes, Hammond is doing a fine job. Sadly undervalued by Tory activists.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited July 2018

    Sandpit said:

    All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.

    The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!

    And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
    They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.

    “Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.

    But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
    You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.

    My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.

    Reading this article this morning:
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/may-and-the-overpowering-stench-of-treachery/
    It’s clear why Davis resigned, his whole department having been undermined by Number 10.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
    At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
    Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.

    Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
    Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
    I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.

    If a party was to grab the post Brexit agenda and run with it they may do very well.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    Artist said:



    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.

    A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)

    That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
    Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678

    felix said:

    AndyJS said:

    Yet another House of Commons voting cock-up:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44867866

    "An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.

    Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.

    This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.

    But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."

    It wasn't a cock-up
    Was that Cable and Farrell then? Spare us the faux outrage please.
    ???
    I think he was referring to Terry Farrell, of DS9 fame.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sandpit said:



    They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.

    “Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.

    But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.

    You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.

    My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.

    Reading this article this morning:
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/may-and-the-overpowering-stench-of-treachery/
    It’s clear why Davis resigned, his whole department having been undermined by Number 10.
    Unhinged.

    Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    Cracking article from Martin Wolf on the US political situation.
    My fear is that we are going down this route here, although thankfully our Conservative party is still much more honourable and decent than the US republican party.
    https://www.ft.com/content/3aea8668-88e2-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Looks like Woodcocks Barrow and Furness CLP were not too happy with him, and were wanting to deselect him. Looks like he walked before he was pushed. Last majority 208, so it doesn't look like he was too popular in the constituency either.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43714534

    http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/barrow/Barrow-MP-saddened-by-email-plot-to-oust-him-9255c2d3-7ffa-4238-94f1-0253f3b39fef-ds
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    TGOHF said:

    I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.

    The huge flaw in your logic is that the only way to make Brexit go away is to stop it from happening. If people are bored of it, they won't support it through thick and thin.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    About time someone put a stop to prurient news outlets. Being the BBC it will actually effect change.

    I'm not really up on what happened. He had his house raided by the police and then the BBC reported on it. Whilst I can't comment on this specific case it does raise challenging issues. Should the media be allowed to report these kind of things? Where is the line. Let's face it badly behaved public figures will certainly have their eye on this.
    But that wasn’t the case, which is the whole point of the legal action. The plod and bbc colluded together.
    50-50 whether Dan Johnson gets fired or appointed special correspondent for chicken farming in the Outer Hebrides. His manager will get fired
    Actually fired for conduct, as opposed to being made redundant on 12 months’ notice / gardening leave / retired with his full final salary pension still intact?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
    At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
    Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.

    Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
    Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
    I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.

    If a party was to grab the post Brexit agenda and run with it they may do very well.
    Just a shame no-one can work out what that agenda might be.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    Sean_F said:

    Artist said:



    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.

    A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)

    That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
    Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
    Would they want him?
    It's a winnable seat, and at some point Corbyn won't be leader of the Labour party, Woodcock might then decide to rejoin. He's also currently under investigation...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Unhinged.

    Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.

    The genuinely patriotic Casino Royale has been silent since the Chequers implosion, which speaks volumes.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Foxy said:

    currystar said:

    currystar said:

    I see inflation has stayed at 2.4% below expectations. So we now have rising wage growth, low inflation and full employment. Vote Labour!!!!

    Fake news.

    CPI for June 2018 is 2.3% not 2.4%

    See https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

    Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.

    Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
    The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
    Yes, Hammond is doing a fine job. Sadly undervalued by Tory activists.

    I suppose the problem for the tories is that these days good news is not considered news
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,050

    Artist said:



    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.

    A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)

    That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
    It is only on Brexit that Soubry is not a mainstream Conservative, indeed her views would have been quite unremarkeable just a few years ago.

    Woodcock, I do not know as well, but apart from being pro Brexit and Pro nuclear (once again quite unremarkeable positions in Labour just a few years ago) what is there to suggest that he would fit in the Tory party?

    Brexit simply does not match much of the rest of politics, helped by being in many theoretical forms, from F*** Business fortress Britain, to Hannanite Swashbuckling Singapore.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    currystar said:

    currystar said:

    I see inflation has stayed at 2.4% below expectations. So we now have rising wage growth, low inflation and full employment. Vote Labour!!!!

    Fake news.

    CPI for June 2018 is 2.3% not 2.4%

    See https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

    Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.

    Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
    The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
    On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Scott_P said:
    That will cut the Government's majority by one - could be crucial when 'ping pong' resumes.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    surby said:

    AndyJS said:

    Yet another House of Commons voting cock-up:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44867866

    "An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.

    Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.

    This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.

    But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."

    I am sure even you do not believe it was a Tory cock-up. He only voted on the two votes which were supposed to be close but did not vote on the others.

    Basically, Tories cannot be trusted
    Wasn't there a story on here a while back with Corbyn saying Labour wouldn't agree to pairing with the Tories any more? Seems clear why...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Sean_F said:

    Artist said:



    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.

    A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)

    That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
    Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
    Hope so. Barrow’s a shoo-in if he does, although Simon Fell, who came so close last year, might be a little peeved.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited July 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    surby said:

    AndyJS said:

    Yet another House of Commons voting cock-up:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44867866

    "An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.

    Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.

    This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.

    But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."

    I am sure even you do not believe it was a Tory cock-up. He only voted on the two votes which were supposed to be close but did not vote on the others.

    Basically, Tories cannot be trusted
    Wasn't there a story on here a while back with Corbyn saying Labour wouldn't agree to pairing with the Tories any more? Seems clear why...
    Other paired Tories apparently confirm they were pressured by whips to break the arrangement. Which I suggest paints Lewis as not an honest man.

    The appropriate response should be for other MPs to refuse to pair with Lewis in future.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited July 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    Cracking article from Martin Wolf on the US political situation.
    My fear is that we are going down this route here, although thankfully our Conservative party is still much more honourable and decent than the US republican party.
    https://www.ft.com/content/3aea8668-88e2-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543

    Paywalled for me but if I had to point to parallels between the US Republicans and our Conservatives, the obvious one is that both are filled with legislators who criticise their president or prime minister almost daily but who take no steps to remove him or her.

    What is more worrying is that under Cameron's leadership (although not necessarily instigated by him) the Conservatives do seem to have adopted some practices from the Republicans, most notably around voter suppression and gerrymandering (which ironically cost Cameron the referendum and his premiership) and demonisation of opponents -- not the devil eyes thing but vetoing Gordon Brown for the IMF, for instance, which parallels Republicans refusing to consider Obama's nominated Supreme Court judge.
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 438
    rkrkrk said:



    Would they want him?
    It's a winnable seat, and at some point Corbyn won't be leader of the Labour party, Woodcock might then decide to rejoin. He's also currently under investigation...

    Does Labour's investigation into him continue now that he's completely removed himself from their jurisdiction? Seems a bit pointless really.

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
    At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
    Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.

    Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
    Britain’s relationship with the EU is likely to be the dominant theme of British politics for the foreseeable future. Whatever way forward is eventually selected, it will command the support of at best a third of the population.

    Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
    Maybe so - but I don't believe it to be a very salient issue when it comes to elections . The 2017 election was not about Brexit despite that being May's justification for calling it - and the next election will end up focussing on other issues.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    justin124 said:

    Scott_P said:
    That will cut the Government's majority by one - could be crucial when 'ping pong' resumes.
    Only two weeks return in september before rising for conference season
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    IanB2 said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:



    All three would be catastrophic for Britain in different ways.

    We've heard all this crap before - leaving the ERM, not joining the Euro, voting leave, triggering Article 50.

    The success of a nation depends mainly on its fine private citizens and their enterprise - not whether we pay a fortune to be a member of a protectionist cartel.

    You have no faith in Britain to flourish - we get it...
    At what point do you think the country will have a consensus about what its future relationship with the EU should look like? The xenophobic pensioners who have inflicted Brexit on the working population don’t seem to be winning converts to their viewpoint just now.
    Most of Britain will move on very quickly after Brexit and those who adapt quickest will thrive.

    Some people are still hung up about the Belgrano and a few more about Iraq. Most have moved on though.
    Nutijob Leavers were confidently predicting that Britain would rapidly move on after the referendum vote. They were wrong about that. You’re wrong now.
    I'd say the majority of the country is gagging to move on and is utterly bored of Brexit shenanigans.

    If a party was to grab the post Brexit agenda and run with it they may do very well.
    Just a shame no-one can work out what that agenda might be.
    Knife and violent crime
    Transport and infrastructure
    NHS for the 21st century
    Etc...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:



    They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.

    “Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.

    But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.

    You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.

    My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.

    Reading this article this morning:
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/may-and-the-overpowering-stench-of-treachery/
    It’s clear why Davis resigned, his whole department having been undermined by Number 10.
    Unhinged.

    Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
    I don’t recall saying that the negotiations would be a walk in the park, but I certainly didn’t expect the EU to actively persue the lose-lose outcome or threaten to annex 5,460 square miles of British territory.

    I do think that negotiating from WTO terms is going to result in a better long term outcome for the UK, than negotiating when the EU are threatening planes not flying and shortages of food and medicines.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    Sean_F said:

    Artist said:



    Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.

    A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)

    That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
    Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
    I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
This discussion has been closed.