It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
UKIP had a large proportion of nasties involved as well as imperial isolationists. The EU was not perfect and did a lot of things wrong, but we had a position of influence in there and it was largely a British creation as well. Over time it will get better and we will now be on the outside looking in even if we join EFTA / EEA.
It was a project that we had a huge part in forming (we wrote huge swathes of their guidelines and directives) and we threw it all away because the Tory part sh*t themselves about UKIP.
Latest @YouGov Eurotrack poll: #EURef2 vi: Join EU 45 (+4); Stay Out 36 (-2). Fwork 9-10.6 (ch since 16-17.5). Record lead of Join vs Stay Out in this @YouGov series. https://bit.ly/3G9hMK4
Watch those join EU numbers crumble - when you tell them what the cost of rejoining would be.
Never. Gonna. Happen.
I could see us joining some kind of EU-very-lite - just free trade without political union, the euro or freedom of movement (as the EU misleadingly calls abolishing immigration controls). Call it the "European Free Trade Association" or something.
But they'll never have the wit to offer that to us.
They would also try to extract an eye-wateringly high price for it.
And Scott_P would write out the cheque whatever it cost. However many hospitals we had to close to achieve it.
Nah, they are narrow little nationalists, so they can’t be progressives.
Wiki (obvious caveats) has the SNP down as "political position: centre-left".
It is an interesting idea that the tag "progressive" is given to those on the left. Most often those on the left appear to want to take the world back to the 1970s. They are similar in outlook to the more swivelly-eyed Tory membership that would like us to go back to the 1950s. They only seem to be interested in genuinely modern ideas as long as it trolls those on the other side of the spectrum.
Unless Sunak wins, you have to guess the NI change will go, and the Corporation Tax change will be tweaked. Whatever happened, the income tax change was always going to be temping for any Government to bring forward too, probably whilst freezing thresholds.
@MarqueeMark How many hospitals could have been built with the money we pissed away on this instead?
Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson, the Lib Dem leader of Portsmouth City Council, told me he and the other ports will take legal action if they’re not compensated. “This their project and they need to pay for it. It’s down to the government to sort out this mess.” https://twitter.com/amandaakass/status/1546172073814687746/photo/1
The EU was not perfect and did a lot of things wrong, but we had a position of influence in there
Riiiiiight.
Oh dear you want to restart all those arguments. Who do you think was responsible for the eastern expansion of the EU and the single market. If you don't think the UK had significant influence on the EU you have an even smaller brain than the average Leaver, and considering only a few people still believe in it that makes your grey matter very very small
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Dirty Labour and Green on slide as Reform surge in this one, despite the rudderless Tory infighting 🤭
Next time HY or Big Owls quotes 2019 polls, May’s Tories below 28 and Corbyn leading, it is prior to Conservatives swallowing Blukip whole, and excreting so many moderates. During those low Tory scores in 2019, what were they with UKIP on top?
General pattern since it all kicked off seems to be 3 to 4 off Tory due to uncertainty to vote. If that initial slide stabilises, new leader bounce could be the next big mover, unless wall to wall tory coverage initiates a recovery
Wall to wall converge of what though? It’s like watching someone having a nervous breakdown - everything you understood them to be frighteningly veering around.
Are the electorate watching this so far thinking there is a prime minister amongst them? One of them had promised to sack one fifth of civil servants to pay for tax cuts, no one is condemning Rwanda, they would rather cancel climate commitments.
No. The Tories can quite easily slide in the polls if they can’t get this horror show behind closed doors and away from public gaze.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
Latest @YouGov Eurotrack poll: #EURef2 vi: Join EU 45 (+4); Stay Out 36 (-2). Fwork 9-10.6 (ch since 16-17.5). Record lead of Join vs Stay Out in this @YouGov series. https://bit.ly/3G9hMK4
His current EU position will suit him well enough for the next election, but Starmer's going to be under considerable pressure mid-term from backbench MPs (like Stella Creasy) to rejoin the EEA if he becomes PM. Rejoiners are going to use the Labour Party to rejoin the EEA/EU the way eurosceptics used the Conservative Party to get Brexit.
That won't happen unless there's an electoral vehicle that can harm Labour by taking votes off them. The Eurosceptics only got the influence in the Conservative Party they did because the party was scared of UKIP taking votes. Who do you see doing this from a pro-European side? The Lib Dems?
From a narrative point of view, Lib Dems' Europe policy hasn't really been hitting the headlines lately and I doubt they'll go in as strong on the issue as they did in 2019.
So no, I don't think either of those parties will be doing the pro-EU UKIP equivalent. Which probably means Labour is safe to sit where it's just placed itself. Unfortunately.
Yeah, Labour are safe at the moment... because rejoiners are playing the long game. They realise they need to boot the Tories out, first, before any other step can be taken to rejoining. Then once Labour are back in, they'll start exerting more pressure a couple of years or so in.
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Where? Where are they “shitting themselves”? All I’ve seen this week is the major opposition party confirm the matter is closed.
To be honest those numbers don't look ridiculous. If wage inflation is 5% this year (it could end up higher still), instead of 2.5%, how much extra revenue would that bring in?
Back of the envelope, 2.5% of approx £400bn = £10 bn, but think this should be a fair bit higher due to IT threshold rates increasing much more slowly than wage inflation.
Also extra tax from VAT from higher prices too. Cutting £15-20 bn of revenue from a budget that was based on wage growth of 2.5% should be fine.
The EU was not perfect and did a lot of things wrong, but we had a position of influence in there
Riiiiiight.
Oh dear you want to restart all those arguments. Who do you think was responsible for the eastern expansion of the EU and the single market. If you don't think the UK had significant influence on the EU you have an even smaller brain than the average Leaver, and considering only a few people still believe in it that makes your grey matter very very small
We used to, but it had been steadily eroding since Maastricht.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
UKIP had a large proportion of nasties involved as well as imperial isolationists. The EU was not perfect and did a lot of things wrong, but we had a position of influence in there and it was largely a British creation as well. Over time it will get better and we will now be on the outside looking in even if we join EFTA / EEA.
It was a project that we had a huge part in forming (we wrote huge swathes of their guidelines and directives) and we threw it all away because the Tory part sh*t themselves about UKIP.
It won't get 'better' from the perspective of those who live in it, because its mechanisms do not hold it accountable to those people.
Nor would re-joining it be any sort of cure for our economic ills, any more than leaving it was, or joining it initially was. Being outside it just increases the number of tools in the box.
Off topic, but very important, this article on the COVID variant sweeping the Unied States: "America has decided the pandemic is over. The coronavirus has other ideas.
The latest omicron offshoot, BA.5, has quickly become dominant in the United States, and thanks to its elusiveness when encountering the human immune system, is driving a wave of cases across the country.
The size of that wave is unclear because most people are testing at home or not testing at all. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the past week has reported a little more than 100,000 new cases a day on average. But infectious-disease experts know that wildly underestimates the true number, which may be as many as a million, said Eric Topol, a professor at Scripps Research who closely tracks pandemic trends." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/10/omicron-variant-ba5-covid-reinfection/ (It's free, as is the rest of the Post's COVID coverage.)
(Many months ago, one commenter here remarked that it was as if the virus was conciously changing tactics so as to keep plaguing us. The commenter (and I) know that isn't true, but sometimes it sure feels as if it were true.)
Isn't that the way that viruses (and plenty of other living things) operate? By adapting, changing, evolving?
Including bugs that reinvent themselves so that their host/victim/meal-ticket does NOT die from invasion but lingers on nicely . . . for the bugs that is . . .
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Who you will be voting for at the next election, Scott? The Lib Dems?
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Where? Where are they “shitting themselves”? All I’ve seen this week is the major opposition party confirm the matter is closed.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
UKIP had a large proportion of nasties involved as well as imperial isolationists. The EU was not perfect and did a lot of things wrong, but we had a position of influence in there and it was largely a British creation as well. Over time it will get better and we will now be on the outside looking in even if we join EFTA / EEA.
It was a project that we had a huge part in forming (we wrote huge swathes of their guidelines and directives) and we threw it all away because the Tory part sh*t themselves about UKIP.
It won't get 'better' from the perspective of those who live in it, because its mechanisms do not hold it accountable to those people.
People inside are not clamouring to leave. Only the UK had that craziness
Nor would re-joining it be any sort of cure for our economic ills, any more than leaving it was, or joining it initially was. Being outside it just increases the number of tools in the box.
I do not care if the UK never rejoins. I am still an EU citizen.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
Off topic, but very important, this article on the COVID variant sweeping the Unied States: "America has decided the pandemic is over. The coronavirus has other ideas.
The latest omicron offshoot, BA.5, has quickly become dominant in the United States, and thanks to its elusiveness when encountering the human immune system, is driving a wave of cases across the country.
The size of that wave is unclear because most people are testing at home or not testing at all. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the past week has reported a little more than 100,000 new cases a day on average. But infectious-disease experts know that wildly underestimates the true number, which may be as many as a million, said Eric Topol, a professor at Scripps Research who closely tracks pandemic trends." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/10/omicron-variant-ba5-covid-reinfection/ (It's free, as is the rest of the Post's COVID coverage.)
(Many months ago, one commenter here remarked that it was as if the virus was conciously changing tactics so as to keep plaguing us. The commenter (and I) know that isn't true, but sometimes it sure feels as if it were true.)
Isn't that the way that viruses (and plenty of other living things) operate? By adapting, changing, evolving?
Including bugs that reinvent themselves so that their host/victim/meal-ticket does NOT die from invasion but lingers on nicely . . . for the bugs that is . . .
points of order: viruses probably aren't alive evolution isn't goal oriented in the way that you seem to imply in your "so that" clause. There can be evolutionary benefits to not killing the host, but there can also be benefits to making them die in very messy ways. It depends on the circumstances. Either way, it's not chosen. An extremely virulent and deadly virus could exist that wipes out its one of its hosts (and potentially by extension, itself). Such things do happen because viruses don't have a conscious strategy. They just multiply. We're the only species capable of seeing the possibility that resources we rely on might run out, and we are still aren't doing enough about that problem.
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Where? Where are they “shitting themselves”? All I’ve seen this week is the major opposition party confirm the matter is closed.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
You mean other than the fact he plans on aligning us to the single market when it comes to goods? I wouldn't say that's the same position. Labour were never going to fight the next election on a rejoin the EU platform. Might we see, however, a commitment to rejoin the single market in say 2028/29? That's a strong possibility.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The rules are already in place
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
Kemi is a buy in as much as Sunak is far too short: her current price of 32 or so Betfair looks moderately interesting, but no more.
If you want a long shot, why not Ms Patel? She's got one of the great offices of State, she's got a great backstory, and that accent has to appeal to the Red Wall.
I also think that surveys underestimate her appeal with Conservative members. At 90-odd, and with her likely to throw her hat in the ring in the next few days, I reckon she's a clear buy.
There is the small matter of being an incompetent psychopathic lunatic, although in this field that is more of a how do you stand out problem.
I don't believe that was a disqualifying factor last time, so I see no reason why it should be this time around.
It's going to be wall to wall Con for the next 10 weeks. That lead won't last.
Utterly meaningless until the Tories have a new leader.
The honeymoon will be fairly meaningless too, unless an election is called (unlikely).
Indeed. And after that is party conference season, which always sends the polls haywire.
There won't be any VI polling which is remotely meaningful until October. The copy/pasters can take a few months off...
I disagree, I think the next general election in 2024 could be decided in the coming weeks, and all the polling over this time can point us to it.
That could be right, but it's more likely to show up in the details rather than the headline VI.
We're entering one of the rare periods when normal people pay attention to politics, but I don't think we're quite there yet as there are still far too many candidates in the race.
Agree. I think the winner of the leadership race in either main party tends to get a “winner’s” bonus. Unless they are a loon. And the the contest helps to define the debate in that party’s terms.
Yeah, if there isn't a Tory bounce once the new leader is in place, then they're in big trouble. But if there is such a bounce, it wouldn't necessarily be significant.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The rules are already in place
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
Then the previous committee should have set the rules. Not pass it onto the new one without any time for them to change them anyway.
As someone born in the early 80s my sense of what the 70s were like comes from Carry On films, the Confessions films, and the Moore Bond films.
Bring them on!
Watch either the original "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" or the movie remake. Everything was either brown or sepia in the 70s. It was a grim time and committed huge sins with wallpaper, sideburns and out-of-control flares.
Yes I will give you the original Tinker Tailor as the case for the prosecution.
...and the remake as the case for why things should be left well alone.
It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
UKIP had a large proportion of nasties involved as well as imperial isolationists. The EU was not perfect and did a lot of things wrong, but we had a position of influence in there and it was largely a British creation as well. Over time it will get better and we will now be on the outside looking in even if we join EFTA / EEA.
It was a project that we had a huge part in forming (we wrote huge swathes of their guidelines and directives) and we threw it all away because the Tory part sh*t themselves about UKIP.
It won't get 'better' from the perspective of those who live in it, because its mechanisms do not hold it accountable to those people.
People inside are not clamouring to leave. Only the UK had that craziness
Nor would re-joining it be any sort of cure for our economic ills, any more than leaving it was, or joining it initially was. Being outside it just increases the number of tools in the box.
I do not care if the UK never rejoins. I am still an EU citizen.
I'm sorry you seem to be finding it so raw still. For me it was a constitutional decision, and the outcome is working as it should be. Boris was the most powerful politician in the land - democratic forces have now ensured that he'll be booted out and a new leader installed. And we as voters all get a chance to endorse or countermand that decision in a couple of years' time. Can't do that with Ursula.
If Mordaunt can get all Tugendhat and Hunt transfers she would have almost exactly one third of declarations.
You need a third to guarantee making the Final - so it would then be a question of whether those who haven't declared skew differently to those who have declared.
And in practice you are highly likely to make the Final with 31% or 32%.
Conclusion - she probably needs a few transfers from people other than Tugendhat or Hunt - but not many.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The rules are already in place
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
Then the previous committee should have set the rules. Not pass it onto the new one without any time for them to change them anyway.
The new committee was always due today, and it would have looked a stitch up if they weren't allowed some input into a contest they'd be running considering we're not even at the starting post yet.
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Where? Where are they “shitting themselves”? All I’ve seen this week is the major opposition party confirm the matter is closed.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
You mean other than the fact he plans on aligning us to the single market when it comes to goods? I wouldn't say that's the same position. Labour were never going to fight the next election on a rejoin the EU platform. Might we see, however, a commitment to rejoin the single market in say 2028/29? That's a strong possibility.
I am sure that there is a large number of UK citizens who are entitled to EU citizenship by family or birth and who will not really care about Brexit. If UK people want to live as disadvantaged that is up to them and it can already be seen in its effects. My daughter applied for a job that needs European travel and "EU Citizenship" was required. She can apply, but many cannot. Holding an Irish passport has been a benefit to me as well.
Brexit has created a two-track Britain and the Leavers are in the slow lane. How ironic, but also how just!
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
It's extremely odd. Why are the rules decided afresh every competition? Hardly seems fair to those who've met the old threshhold to be told there's a new higher threshhold 'because'.
You really believe all our ills stem from leaving the EU don’t you? You really think we’ll be noticeably worse off outside. It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
I hardly think Scott's alone in believing we'll be "noticeably worse off" after Brexit.
Off topic, but very important, this article on the COVID variant sweeping the Unied States: "America has decided the pandemic is over. The coronavirus has other ideas.
The latest omicron offshoot, BA.5, has quickly become dominant in the United States, and thanks to its elusiveness when encountering the human immune system, is driving a wave of cases across the country.
The size of that wave is unclear because most people are testing at home or not testing at all. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the past week has reported a little more than 100,000 new cases a day on average. But infectious-disease experts know that wildly underestimates the true number, which may be as many as a million, said Eric Topol, a professor at Scripps Research who closely tracks pandemic trends." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/10/omicron-variant-ba5-covid-reinfection/ (It's free, as is the rest of the Post's COVID coverage.)
(Many months ago, one commenter here remarked that it was as if the virus was conciously changing tactics so as to keep plaguing us. The commenter (and I) know that isn't true, but sometimes it sure feels as if it were true.)
Isn't that the way that viruses (and plenty of other living things) operate? By adapting, changing, evolving?
Including bugs that reinvent themselves so that their host/victim/meal-ticket does NOT die from invasion but lingers on nicely . . . for the bugs that is . . .
points of order: viruses probably aren't alive evolution isn't goal oriented in the way that you seem to imply in your "so that" clause. There can be evolutionary benefits to not killing the host, but there can also be benefits to making them die in very messy ways. It depends on the circumstances. Either way, it's not chosen. An extremely virulent and deadly virus could exist that wipes out its one of its hosts (and potentially by extension, itself). Such things do happen because viruses don't have a conscious strategy. They just multiply. We're the only species capable of seeing the possibility that resources we rely on might run out, and we are still aren't doing enough about that problem.
Did I say anything re: "goal oriented" or "conscious strategy"? Don't think so. And certainly not what I meant.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The rules are already in place
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
Then the previous committee should have set the rules. Not pass it onto the new one without any time for them to change them anyway.
The new committee was always due today, and it would have looked a stitch up if they weren't allowed some input into a contest they'd be running considering we're not even at the starting post yet.
Well according to BigG their job is just to rubber stamp them, so they don't have any real input. Just lazy buck passing of responsibility from the old one.
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Where? Where are they “shitting themselves”? All I’ve seen this week is the major opposition party confirm the matter is closed.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
You mean other than the fact he plans on aligning us to the single market when it comes to goods? I wouldn't say that's the same position. Labour were never going to fight the next election on a rejoin the EU platform. Might we see, however, a commitment to rejoin the single market in say 2028/29? That's a strong possibility.
I am sure that there is a large number of UK citizens who are entitled to EU citizenship by family or birth and who will not really care about Brexit. If UK people want to live as disadvantaged that is up to them and it can already be seen in its effects. My daughter applied for a job that needs European travel and "EU Citizenship" was required. She can apply, but many cannot. Holding an Irish passport has been a benefit to me as well.
Brexit has created a two-track Britain and the Leavers are in the slow lane. How ironic, but also how just!
Apologies if mis-rembering, but didn’t you vote Leave in 2016?
As someone born in the early 80s my sense of what the 70s were like comes from Carry On films, the Confessions films, and the Moore Bond films.
Bring them on!
Watch either the original "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" or the movie remake. Everything was either brown or sepia in the 70s. It was a grim time and committed huge sins with wallpaper, sideburns and out-of-control flares.
Yes I will give you the original Tinker Tailor as the case for the prosecution.
...and the remake as the case for why things should be left well alone.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
It's extremely odd. Why are the rules decided afresh every competition? Hardly seems fair to those who've met the old threshhold to be told there's a new higher threshhold 'because'.
Why is it not fair? I can see that there is potential value in consistency, but the constitution is clear that the committee will set the rules each time - so in fact it is completely fair, since the rules are that the rules will be determined each time. There is no standing 'threshold', so they should not be relying on assuming it will be the same.
As to why they rules are set so flexibly, it seems intentional - probably to enable the party to move quickler or slower depending on the situation, whether they are in government or opposition, and how big a mess they are in.
Right now they need to move quickly as they are in government, they cannot afford to wait ages.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
The line of course is more complex and nuanced than that. No one is talking about rejoining because no one knows on what terms the UK would be allowed to rejoin.
As long as Freedom of Movement is required, the option to join will be closed - that doesn't mean there can't be closer trading and economic terms between the UK and the EU under a future non-Conservative Government and that may well involve a more serious discussion about Northern Ireland.
None of this precludes discussions on rejoining and it's worth pointing out for a Party which claims to always act in the national interest, it seems odd to completely rule out something which may one day prove to be incontrovertibly in the national interest. As we've seen, the world changes and what may seem orthodox and obvious may seem absurd in 5-10 years and of course vice versa.
The sensible line therefore is to rule out EU membership for now but to stress that as circumstances change and evolve, the possibility, however remote, may exist it becomes clearly in the national interest for the UK to seek to join the European Union and at that time the UK Government would seek to join on terms most supportive to that interest.
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Where? Where are they “shitting themselves”? All I’ve seen this week is the major opposition party confirm the matter is closed.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
You mean other than the fact he plans on aligning us to the single market when it comes to goods? I wouldn't say that's the same position. Labour were never going to fight the next election on a rejoin the EU platform. Might we see, however, a commitment to rejoin the single market in say 2028/29? That's a strong possibility.
I am sure that there is a large number of UK citizens who are entitled to EU citizenship by family or birth and who will not really care about Brexit. If UK people want to live as disadvantaged that is up to them and it can already be seen in its effects. My daughter applied for a job that needs European travel and "EU Citizenship" was required. She can apply, but many cannot. Holding an Irish passport has been a benefit to me as well.
Brexit has created a two-track Britain and the Leavers are in the slow lane. How ironic, but also how just!
Apologies if mis-rembering, but didn’t you vote Leave in 2016?
No. I voted Remain.
Much before Brexit came along I lazily accepted many of the BOO arguments. Then when it became real, when it mattered, I spent a few hours looking at the BOO side of the argument and it did not take a lot of effort to see that it was composed of lies and bullsh*t.
There was no question. On the day, I voted "Remain"
If Mordaunt can get all Tugendhat and Hunt transfers she would have almost exactly one third of declarations.
You need a third to guarantee making the Final - so it would then be a question of whether those who haven't declared skew differently to those who have declared.
And in practice you are highly likely to make the Final with 31% or 32%.
Conclusion - she probably needs a few transfers from people other than Tugendhat or Hunt - but not many.
I don't think she needs that type of baggage to be honest. Picking up votes from the right wing dropouts would help detoxify her. Getting Hunt's and Tugend's would reinforce an impression she is trying to get away from.
I presume Aaron must now be referred to as a "senior Tory"....
I pondered this recently. There are hundreds of "senior MPs". But I've never seen a reference to a "junior MP".
Unlike in the US where someone can still be a junior Senator after 20 years.
And why is that I wonder?
As for MPs, seem to recall that after every general election there's lots of comments re: new intake?
What in USA is referred to as "freshmen" members of Congress, in imitation of use of the term to describe first-year students in colleges and high schools
Progression in academic setting being:
freshman (regardless of gender, at least was!) > sophomore > junior > senior
As in "is Bif (or Buffy) a freshman?" or "Did you hear, the entire sophomore class has been expelled?"
She'd certainly be mine! I read about her last night. She's significantly to the right of Priti Patel and who'd have thought there would be any space there?
What is out there to the right of Patel? Pirate Libertarianism?
We have one of those so why don’t we ask St Bart for his thoughts on Bad Enoch’s platform? 😇
It depends upon what you mean as right. I'm right economically, but very liberal socially.
So that would put me well to the right on economic issues, but not on social issues were "right" is typically taken to mean illiberal (then again, the left equally tend to be illiberal nowadays too). Patel is socially "right" which I don't like, she's far too illiberal and authoritarian for my tastes.
I've not seen enough of Badenoch to judge her platform to be perfectly honest.
That’s a prompt and fair enough answer, though I did have to read it three times.
Social Libertarianism not really fitting into a left/right axis? Authoritarian/liberal is a different model than the left/right used for economics?
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The rules are already in place
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
Then the previous committee should have set the rules. Not pass it onto the new one without any time for them to change them anyway.
The new committee was always due today, and it would have looked a stitch up if they weren't allowed some input into a contest they'd be running considering we're not even at the starting post yet.
Well according to BigG their job is just to rubber stamp them, so they don't have any real input. Just lazy buck passing of responsibility from the old one.
Everyone will have been thinking about the contest since Boris announced his resignation. They will have thought about the potential options - indeed we've had any number of comments over the weekend about what they might consider - and 90 minutes is plenty of time to debate it. Why would that debate take longer?
And they don't need to sell it to the party, the MPs will just have chosen the people who they know will be responsible for determining the rules. Pick someone you trust to make a good decision - its like the public choosing MPs and having to trust their judgement.
We're treating all this like some really momentous decision, and it sort of is, but ultimately it is deciding upon an administrative procedure - it shouldn't take very long to discuss the core issues:
i) what timetable should we agree? ii) What thresholds, if any, should we apply?
As for the Board's involvement, the rules say the committee determines the procedure after consultation of the Board. That will I am sure be taken seriously, but it is still up to the former even if the Board say they don't like it.
Worth noting once again that the Brexiteers, the victors, are shitting themselves that their project will ultimately fail as the public turns against them...
Where? Where are they “shitting themselves”? All I’ve seen this week is the major opposition party confirm the matter is closed.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
You mean other than the fact he plans on aligning us to the single market when it comes to goods? I wouldn't say that's the same position. Labour were never going to fight the next election on a rejoin the EU platform. Might we see, however, a commitment to rejoin the single market in say 2028/29? That's a strong possibility.
I am sure that there is a large number of UK citizens who are entitled to EU citizenship by family or birth and who will not really care about Brexit. If UK people want to live as disadvantaged that is up to them and it can already be seen in its effects. My daughter applied for a job that needs European travel and "EU Citizenship" was required. She can apply, but many cannot. Holding an Irish passport has been a benefit to me as well.
Brexit has created a two-track Britain and the Leavers are in the slow lane. How ironic, but also how just!
Apologies if mis-rembering, but didn’t you vote Leave in 2016?
No. I voted Remain.
Much before Brexit came along I lazily accepted many of the BOO arguments. Then when it became real, when it mattered, I spent a few hours looking at the BOO side of the argument and it did not take a lot of effort to see that it was composed of lies and bullsh*t.
There was no question. On the day, I voted "Remain"
You really believe all our ills stem from leaving the EU don’t you? You really think we’ll be noticeably worse off outside. It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
I hardly think Scott's alone in believing we'll be "noticeably worse off" after Brexit.
The problem is the lack of the counter experiment. It’s certainly most likely we are worse off. No one really doubts that. However we have just been shafted for two years by Covid and then the war in Ukraine. This has complicated the picture rather.
You really believe all our ills stem from leaving the EU don’t you? You really think we’ll be noticeably worse off outside. It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
I hardly think Scott's alone in believing we'll be "noticeably worse off" after Brexit.
The problem is the lack of the counter experiment. It’s certainly most likely we are worse off. No one really doubts that. However we have just been shafted for two years by Covid and then the war in Ukraine. This has complicated the picture rather.
Yup. We are now inside what was once a counter-factual but real events mean it can’t now be judged against the old projections. The only meaningful debate now is what would happen if we joined the EU or EEA, assuming we’d be able to.
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The rules are already in place
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
Then the previous committee should have set the rules. Not pass it onto the new one without any time for them to change them anyway.
The new committee was always due today, and it would have looked a stitch up if they weren't allowed some input into a contest they'd be running considering we're not even at the starting post yet.
Well according to BigG their job is just to rubber stamp them, so they don't have any real input. Just lazy buck passing of responsibility from the old one.
Everyone will have been thinking about the contest since Boris announced his resignation. They will have thought about the potential options - indeed we've had any number of comments over the weekend about what they might consider - and 90 minutes is plenty of time to debate it. Why would that debate take longer?
And they don't need to sell it to the party, the MPs will just have chosen the people who they know will be responsible for determining the rules. Pick someone you trust to make a good decision - its like the public choosing MPs and having to trust their judgement.
We're treating all this like some really momentous decision, and it sort of is, but ultimately it is deciding upon an administrative procedure - it shouldn't take very long to discuss the core issues:
i) what timetable should we agree? ii) What thresholds, if any, should we apply?
As for the Board's involvement, the rules say the committee determines the procedure after consultation of the Board. That will I am sure be taken seriously, but it is still up to the former even if the Board say they don't like it.
Theoretically, what if half the committee thought it was key to get Boris out asap and wanted to keep the vote away from the members and half did not. That would take some time to work through.
90 mins is from the announcement of the committee appointments to when they expect the rest of the party to vote on the timetable, so the meeting would presumably have to be much shorter than the 90 mins. Or will they ask the MPs to vote on proposals they have not even seen before the meeting?
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
Plants act to reduce CO2 levels, so stopping completely is not necessary and could be counterproductive. And involve the extinction of all human and animal life.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
As a species, yes. But the argument that all we are doing by net zero is offshoring carbon emissions to China merits some consideration. There may be more effective ways of achieving the goal of not overheating the planet.
Zahawi is having a bad day. First he cocks up his 20% cut line. Now he has been rebuked by the Governor of the BoE for announcing tax changes outside of a Budget.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
Plants act to reduce CO2 levels, so stopping completely is not necessary and could be counterproductive. And involve the extinction of all human and animal life.
But the plants are eaten, or decay, to complete the carbon cycle. It's only when they are buried in geological timescales that they sequester CO2 permanently (or in peat bogs/tundra).
The new executive is meeting *now* to decide the rules of the leadership contest (and therefore also the timeline of Boris Johnson's departure from Number 10)
What a bonkers way to make rules. Elect a whole load of new people to the 1922. Give them just 90 mins to not only agree the rules for another contest between themselves, but also sell them to a very divided party! Just, why?
The rules are already in place
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
Then the previous committee should have set the rules. Not pass it onto the new one without any time for them to change them anyway.
The new committee was always due today, and it would have looked a stitch up if they weren't allowed some input into a contest they'd be running considering we're not even at the starting post yet.
Well according to BigG their job is just to rubber stamp them, so they don't have any real input. Just lazy buck passing of responsibility from the old one.
I did not say that at all
I said they will clarify the rules
They will lay out the timetable and the minimum backers required to stand
They are a new committee and could even demand Boris goes earlier but I do not see that happenings
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Completely agree. I think we are underestimating the role of technology in completely changing the equation. Announcing an end date to new petrol cars was, in retrospect, a brilliant UK/EU policy. We’re a big enough region to make the development get accelerated and hence the rest of the world will just follow.
Similarly I used to be a massive backer of nuclear to beat climate change, but renewables are getting more efficient than ever seemed possible.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Given that the EuCo has spent the last x years trying to force Switzerland to abandon that style of agreement, surely it is unlikely that they would want another one?
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
I agree on 1 but think 2 is more likely than not in the 2030s.
You really believe all our ills stem from leaving the EU don’t you? You really think we’ll be noticeably worse off outside. It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
I hardly think Scott's alone in believing we'll be "noticeably worse off" after Brexit.
The problem is the lack of the counter experiment. It’s certainly most likely we are worse off. No one really doubts that. However we have just been shafted for two years by Covid and then the war in Ukraine. This has complicated the picture rather.
The important thing is what people believe has caused us to be worse off and the polling evidence indicates that the numbers who believe Brexit was the right thing to do continues to decline.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
To be honest Starmer announcing the same position on the EU as the conservatives was a pleasant surprise and has ended remainers hopes for quite some time
The line of course is more complex and nuanced than that. No one is talking about rejoining because no one knows on what terms the UK would be allowed to rejoin.
As long as Freedom of Movement is required, the option to join will be closed - that doesn't mean there can't be closer trading and economic terms between the UK and the EU under a future non-Conservative Government and that may well involve a more serious discussion about Northern Ireland.
None of this precludes discussions on rejoining and it's worth pointing out for a Party which claims to always act in the national interest, it seems odd to completely rule out something which may one day prove to be incontrovertibly in the national interest. As we've seen, the world changes and what may seem orthodox and obvious may seem absurd in 5-10 years and of course vice versa.
The sensible line therefore is to rule out EU membership for now but to stress that as circumstances change and evolve, the possibility, however remote, may exist it becomes clearly in the national interest for the UK to seek to join the European Union and at that time the UK Government would seek to join on terms most supportive to that interest.
Your last paragraph is fair enough but Starmer did not say or indicate such an approach and categorically ruled out joining the single market
For the benefit of doubt I am in favour of joining the single market
As someone born in the early 80s my sense of what the 70s were like comes from Carry On films, the Confessions films, and the Moore Bond films.
Bring them on!
They could try Frank Spencer as PM........where is Williamson when we need him......
Yes sitcoms are the other argument in favour. Frank couldn’t even hold down a job and they had a nice enough house.
In The Good Life, Tom could throw in his admittedly well-paid job because at 40, he'd paid off the mortgage on what would now be a £2-3 million house. Barbara did not work, of course.
1. There is no prospect that the UK will apply to join the EU in the next two decades. Even in the event that the UK dramatically underperformed the EU economically, it is still extremely unlikely.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Given that the EuCo has spent the last x years trying to force Switzerland to abandon that style of agreement, surely it is unlikely that they would want another one?
We're a lot bigger than Switzerland, and import a lot more EU products.
You really believe all our ills stem from leaving the EU don’t you? You really think we’ll be noticeably worse off outside. It really is like the reverse UKIP. For them everything bad was because of the EU, for you it’s Brexit.
Fascinating.
I hardly think Scott's alone in believing we'll be "noticeably worse off" after Brexit.
The problem is the lack of the counter experiment. It’s certainly most likely we are worse off. No one really doubts that. However we have just been shafted for two years by Covid and then the war in Ukraine. This has complicated the picture rather.
The important thing is what people believe has caused us to be worse off and the polling evidence indicates that the numbers who believe Brexit was the right thing to do continues to decline.
Important in one sense, but I doubt there is a majority for rejoin, certainly not when the price is revealed.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
Ha yes, the cynic in you is strong, but I know where you are coming from!
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
As Germany fires up its coal fired power plants and gas to Germany is to be closed off for 10 days for maintenance to the pipeline
Emulating possibly the stupidest energy policy in Europe might not be a genius move.
They’re talking tens of billions in tax cuts. A fraction of that could have been spent 12 months ago, hell even 6 months ago when Russias intentions became clear, to accelerate already planning approved solar and wind installations and legislation to fast-track more. A few more billion on reintroducing solar FiT subsidies to households, a smaller amount to subsidise retrofits of insulation, and we could have seen a significant in our reliance on gas. But we didn’t.
I presume Aaron must now be referred to as a "senior Tory"....
I pondered this recently. There are hundreds of "senior MPs". But I've never seen a reference to a "junior MP".
Unlike in the US where someone can still be a junior Senator after 20 years.
Although, equally, Jon Ossoff was Senior Senator for Georgia from the moment he took the oath of office last year, having never held any elected office before (while 81 year old Bernie Sanders remained Junior Senator for Vermont).
It has a very specific meaning in the US Senate, of course.
Many Conservatives are stupid, then. We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
It’s the situation we’ve got ourselves into as a country. We end up arguing as if you have to be an eco-zealot or an anti-science idiot.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
My engineering professor car-share (right up till Covid) asserted that electric cars would never work. Even in two years they are booming. Charging stations are tolling out. We have made huge strides in renewables. But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
These kinds of things are really important. Too many opinion formers seem to see things in absolutes. Either one technology is the solution to everything or it’s all pointless. We need a portfolio approach.
Comments
It was a project that we had a huge part in forming (we wrote huge swathes of their guidelines and directives) and we threw it all away because the Tory part sh*t themselves about UKIP.
And Scott_P would write out the cheque whatever it cost. However many hospitals we had to close to achieve it.
Javid wants £40bn of tax cuts
Truss wants £34bn
Zahawi looking at £32bn
Shapps £22bn
Hunt seeking £20bn
Tugendhat £18bn
Mordaunt £5bn
Sunak "fairtytales"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-11/where-the-candidates-to-replace-boris-johnson-stand-on-uk-taxes?srnd=premium-uk
Brexit is a shitshow, it is costing us a fortune, and you know it.
Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson, the Lib Dem leader of Portsmouth City Council, told me he and the other ports will take legal action if they’re not compensated. “This their project and they need to pay for it. It’s down to the government to sort out this mess.” https://twitter.com/amandaakass/status/1546172073814687746/photo/1
@ChrisMasonBBC
The new look 1922 Committee"
https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1546535051722211329
Are the electorate watching this so far thinking there is a prime minister amongst them? One of them had promised to sack one fifth of civil servants to pay for tax cuts, no one is condemning Rwanda, they would rather cancel climate commitments.
No. The Tories can quite easily slide in the polls if they can’t get this horror show behind closed doors and away from public gaze.
The Conservative party board then meets at 6:30pm to sign them off.
https://twitter.com/LiseMcNally/status/1546536299242426371
Back of the envelope, 2.5% of approx £400bn = £10 bn, but think this should be a fair bit higher due to IT threshold rates increasing much more slowly than wage inflation.
Also extra tax from VAT from higher prices too. Cutting £15-20 bn of revenue from a budget that was based on wage growth of 2.5% should be fine.
Nor would re-joining it be any sort of cure for our economic ills, any more than leaving it was, or joining it initially was. Being outside it just increases the number of tools in the box.
Including bugs that reinvent themselves so that their host/victim/meal-ticket does NOT die from invasion but lingers on nicely . . . for the bugs that is . . .
1822 Committee sounds more like it!
I do not care if the UK never rejoins. I am still an EU citizen.
Numbers including the candidate themselves:
Sunak - 39
Mordaunt - 25
Tugendhat - 20
Truss - 16
Hunt - 15
Zahawi - 14
Badenoch - 14
Patel - 14
Braverman - 12
Javid - 12
Shapps - 8
Truss static all day. Key number to watch looks like the Mordaunt / Truss gap.
So who are the rules being fixed up for?
viruses probably aren't alive
evolution isn't goal oriented in the way that you seem to imply in your "so that" clause. There can be evolutionary benefits to not killing the host, but there can also be benefits to making them die in very messy ways. It depends on the circumstances. Either way, it's not chosen. An extremely virulent and deadly virus could exist that wipes out its one of its hosts (and potentially by extension, itself). Such things do happen because viruses don't have a conscious strategy. They just multiply. We're the only species capable of seeing the possibility that resources we rely on might run out, and we are still aren't doing enough about that problem.
Labour were never going to fight the next election on a rejoin the EU platform. Might we see, however, a commitment to rejoin the single market in say 2028/29? That's a strong possibility.
They are only clarifying them for this contest and most of it has been pre announced including sending the final 2 names to the membership by 22nd July
And "Smileys People" was way better than either.
You need a third to guarantee making the Final - so it would then be a question of whether those who haven't declared skew differently to those who have declared.
And in practice you are highly likely to make the Final with 31% or 32%.
Conclusion - she probably needs a few transfers from people other than Tugendhat or Hunt - but not many.
Brexit has created a two-track Britain and the Leavers are in the slow lane. How ironic, but also how just!
But this is NOT my forte, obvioiusly!
WW2 Japanese soldier turned up in Ukraine (in 2006).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WsPTrJZN_Q
We can't just keep increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop at some point.
As to why they rules are set so flexibly, it seems intentional - probably to enable the party to move quickler or slower depending on the situation, whether they are in government or opposition, and how big a mess they are in.
Right now they need to move quickly as they are in government, they cannot afford to wait ages.
As long as Freedom of Movement is required, the option to join will be closed - that doesn't mean there can't be closer trading and economic terms between the UK and the EU under a future non-Conservative Government and that may well involve a more serious discussion about Northern Ireland.
None of this precludes discussions on rejoining and it's worth pointing out for a Party which claims to always act in the national interest, it seems odd to completely rule out something which may one day prove to be incontrovertibly in the national interest. As we've seen, the world changes and what may seem orthodox and obvious may seem absurd in 5-10 years and of course vice versa.
The sensible line therefore is to rule out EU membership for now but to stress that as circumstances change and evolve, the possibility, however remote, may exist it becomes clearly in the national interest for the UK to seek to join the European Union and at that time the UK Government would seek to join on terms most supportive to that interest.
Much before Brexit came along I lazily accepted many of the BOO arguments. Then when it became real, when it mattered, I spent a few hours looking at the BOO side of the argument and it did not take a lot of effort to see that it was composed of lies and bullsh*t.
There was no question. On the day, I voted "Remain"
As for MPs, seem to recall that after every general election there's lots of comments re: new intake?
What in USA is referred to as "freshmen" members of Congress, in imitation of use of the term to describe first-year students in colleges and high schools
Progression in academic setting being:
freshman (regardless of gender, at least was!) > sophomore > junior > senior
As in "is Bif (or Buffy) a freshman?" or "Did you hear, the entire sophomore class has been expelled?"
Left/right and liberal/authoritarian is good chart.
I'm liberal right.
The middle position I’d argue for (target 2-2.5% rather than 1.5% and with the right tech we can get there without too awful a set of sacrifices) gets lost.
And they don't need to sell it to the party, the MPs will just have chosen the people who they know will be responsible for determining the rules. Pick someone you trust to make a good decision - its like the public choosing MPs and having to trust their judgement.
We're treating all this like some really momentous decision, and it sort of is, but ultimately it is deciding upon an administrative procedure - it shouldn't take very long to discuss the core issues:
i) what timetable should we agree?
ii) What thresholds, if any, should we apply?
As for the Board's involvement, the rules say the committee determines the procedure after consultation of the Board. That will I am sure be taken seriously, but it is still up to the former even if the Board say they don't like it.
90 mins is from the announcement of the committee appointments to when they expect the rest of the party to vote on the timetable, so the meeting would presumably have to be much shorter than the 90 mins. Or will they ask the MPs to vote on proposals they have not even seen before the meeting?
We have made huge strides in renewables.
But there are a lot of challenges. I’d argue that net zero is a red herring. Ultimately we will transition completely from fossil fuels. Net zero is about exerting pressure to do it as fast as possible. Actually, external factors such as the price of fuel now will add their own stimulus.
Surely that can't happen now as Javid wants tens of billions in tax cuts?
I said they will clarify the rules
They will lay out the timetable and the minimum backers required to stand
They are a new committee and could even demand Boris goes earlier but I do not see that happenings
Similarly I used to be a massive backer of nuclear to beat climate change, but renewables are getting more efficient than ever seemed possible.
2. It is possible, although still unlikely, that the UK enters into an agreement with the EU like the one Switzerland has - i.e. a bespoke agreement that is similar (but not exactly the same as) EEA membership.
Added bonuses would be less soil erosion, better and nore nourishing crops, and reduced need for nitrogen fertilisers.
The cynic in me says though, if we did this and it worked, senior politicians here and globally would try somehow exclude that result from our target - because punishing people sort of seems to be the point.
For the benefit of doubt I am in favour of joining the single market
They’re talking tens of billions in tax cuts. A fraction of that could have been spent 12 months ago, hell even 6 months ago when Russias intentions became clear, to accelerate already planning approved solar and wind installations and legislation to fast-track more. A few more billion on reintroducing solar FiT subsidies to households, a smaller amount to subsidise retrofits of insulation, and we could have seen a significant in our reliance on gas. But we didn’t.
It has a very specific meaning in the US Senate, of course.