Perhaps. It reads more like a typical incoherent Mail rant against the 21st century by an editor who fears that the referendum is already lost. Why would any ambitious politicians jump on that bandwagon?
Still 'on the fence' are you?
Alastair is letting his own prejudices against the Mail and Outers rule his head.
Here are the politics: half or more Tory voters want to go. So far, there is *no one* in the entire parliamentary party prepared to speak for them.
If this remains the case, Remain may still win (personally, I think many Tories will vote Remain with a heavy heart out of fear for their leader and their pockets whatever they say) but they won't be happy about it.
Whoever takes a stand now will have massive quodos and credit for the next leadership contest - there are 80-100 BOO'ers, and at least half the membership - particularly if they fight a good and respectful (of Cameron) campaign.
That means there's a chance of beating Osborne too. Osborne knows this which is why he's trying to sew up the parliamentary party and, if he can get away with it through Lord Feldman, strip down members voting rights too.
1) what I want to happen (both options at the moment look like shit sandwiches); and
2) what I expect to happen (a clear Remain victory, in part because few politicians of any note are going to touch the Leave camps with a bargepole)
A neccessary exercise for anyone betting on politics. The difficulty can come when what you think will happen aligns with what you want to happen, moreso than the other way round.
The EU is doomed as surely as Rome was when Valentinian died. It'll take a while, but the emotive delinquency of Germany and Sweden has massively exacerbated the migrant crisis, the federalist ideologues have created economic woe with the single currency, and it'll take catastrophe for the true believers to finally permit reality to intrude upon their dreams.
The sooner we leave, the better.
Edited extra bit: kudos*, Mr. Royale.
I still think Osborne's at risk of re-enacting the Rise and Fall of Antigonus Monopthalmus.
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Well I think Tories would find it much easier going being in the Leave campaign if it weren't so closely linked to Farage. He is toxic to any kind of moderate Tory MP.
Farage should resign now and hand over to Evans. It would get UKIP in the headlines and he could say, "I'm devoting my time to the grass roots campaign for UKIP to leave". That move alone would help moderate Tory MPs declare for leave.
The problem for the Conservatives will be that the majority of Tory voters are likely to have voted "leave" (Labour voters will see "Remain" over the line)
The EU is doomed as surely as Rome was when Valentinian died. It'll take a while, but the emotive delinquency of Germany and Sweden has massively exacerbated the migrant crisis, the federalist ideologues have created economic woe with the single currency, and it'll take catastrophe for the true believers to finally permit reality to intrude upon their dreams.
The sooner we leave, the better.
Edited extra bit: kudos*, Mr. Royale.
I still think Osborne's at risk of re-enacting the Rise and Fall of Antigonus Monopthalmus.
Mr. W, it'll take something more. The migrant crisis deepening might do it. I'd be surprised, but then media cover-ups and political pressure coupled with police (at the top, at least) being unable or unwilling to stop crime or even report when suspects aren't white could lead to massive civil strife.
Perhaps. It reads more like a typical incoherent Mail rant against the 21st century by an editor who fears that the referendum is already lost. Why would any ambitious politicians jump on that bandwagon?
Still 'on the fence' are you?
Alastair is letting his own prejudices against the Mail and Outers rule his head.
Here are the politics: half or more Tory voters want to go. So far, there is *no one* in the entire parliamentary party prepared to speak for them.
If this remains the case, Remain may still win (personally, I think many Tories will vote Remain with a heavy heart out of fear for their leader and their pockets whatever they say) but they won't be happy about it.
Whoever takes a stand now will have massive quodos and credit for the next leadership contest - there are 80-100 BOO'ers, and at least half the membership - particularly if they fight a good and respectful (of Cameron) campaign.
That means there's a chance of beating Osborne too. Osborne knows this which is why he's trying to sew up the parliamentary party and, if he can get away with it through Lord Feldman, strip down members voting rights too.
If Osborne decides to strip down member's voting rights on the leadership then what't the bloody point in being a member? I know my £80 per year isn't much for the party, but I'll be looking to cancel my membership and donation if they don't let the members have a say on who becomes the next leader, or they turn it into some kind of plebiscite where we get a yay or nay on one candidate nominated by MPs.
Perhaps. It reads more like a typical incoherent Mail rant against the 21st century by an editor who fears that the referendum is already lost. Why would any ambitious politicians jump on that bandwagon?
Still 'on the fence' are you?
Alastair is letting his own prejudices against the Mail and Outers rule his head.
Here are the politics: half or more Tory voters want to go. So far, there is *no one* in the entire parliamentary party prepared to speak for them.
If this remains the case, Remain may still win (personally, I think many Tories will vote Remain with a heavy heart out of fear for their leader and their pockets whatever they say) but they won't be happy about it.
Whoever takes a stand now will have massive quodos and credit for the next leadership contest - there are 80-100 BOO'ers, and at least half the membership - particularly if they fight a good and respectful (of Cameron) campaign.
That means there's a chance of beating Osborne too. Osborne knows this which is why he's trying to sew up the parliamentary party and, if he can get away with it through Lord Feldman, strip down members voting rights too.
Do you not count Grayling, IDS etc? It seems that Grayling wants to come out for Leave but has been told to wait (or resign, presumably).
I'm usually certain to vote, but I'm old enough to suspect that I'll have, at best, one more General Election.
Reading PB, I see incontrovertible critiques of every possible party, expressed with considerable force. And I'd have to say that virtually all of these critiques have some substance.
It's hard to see me ever again finding someone suitable to vote for.
'If Osborne decides to strip down member's voting rights on the leadership then what't the bloody point in being a member?'
I think the Conservative leadership have made it abundantly clear they would rather not have to deal with the members at all, and indeed they don't need them for the purposes of staying in office. The result of May's election, where Labour's 'ground game' proved so pitifully inadequate, will only have strengthened that view.
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Farage is a busted flush. I want Leave to win, probably more than you do, but if Farage is going to take up the whole stage an not leave any room for anyone else then Leave will struggle to get above 40%.
I'm usually certain to vote, but I'm old enough to suspect that I'll have, at best, one more General Election.
Reading PB, I see incontrovertible critiques of every possible party, expressed with considerable force. And I'd have to say that virtually all of these critiques have some substance.
It's hard to see me ever again finding someone suitable to vote for.
Understand where you're coming from. I end up voting for the least bad option.
I see Enoch was being quoted earlier... Ah such wise words (again)
It occurred to me the other day that if Enoch read PB from way up in heaven, he might be embarrassed about, cringe at, my sycophancy, and remark upon it to people I disliked...
The follow up to Cameron’s fandango with Tusk misses the point. Although Cameron tried to set the agenda for the referendum, events on the ground have greater power to determine people’s attitude to the EU.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
Away from the eu-froth, the big news is the PB Fantasy league table is tightening in the middle with a few breaking away from the peloton. Can we reel em back in...
TSE, like Liverpool, no shame in being 7th. Naturally I'm in the traditional spurs position.
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Farage is a busted flush. I want Leave to win, probably more than you do, but if Farage is going to take up the whole stage an not leave any room for anyone else then Leave will struggle to get above 40%.
He's not though is he (going to take up the whole stage, the busted flush is subjective)
Away from the eu-froth, the big news is the PB Fantasy league table is tightening in the middle with a few breaking away from the peloton. Can we reel em back in...
TSE, like Liverpool, no shame in being 7th. Naturally I'm in the traditional spurs position.
Perhaps. It reads more like a typical incoherent Mail rant against the 21st century by an editor who fears that the referendum is already lost. Why would any ambitious politicians jump on that bandwagon?
Still 'on the fence' are you?
Alastair is letting his own prejudices against the Mail and Outers rule his head.
Here are the politics: half or more Tory voters want to go. So far, there is *no one* in the entire parliamentary party prepared to speak for them.
If this remains the case, Remain may still win (personally, I think many Tories will vote Remain with a heavy heart out of fear for their leader and their pockets whatever they say) but they won't be happy about it.
Whoever takes a stand now will have massive quodos and credit for the next leadership contest - there are 80-100 BOO'ers, and at least half the membership - particularly if they fight a good and respectful (of Cameron) campaign.
That means there's a chance of beating Osborne too. Osborne knows this which is why he's trying to sew up the parliamentary party and, if he can get away with it through Lord Feldman, strip down members voting rights too.
Do you not count Grayling, IDS etc? It seems that Grayling wants to come out for Leave but has been told to wait (or resign, presumably).
It won't be IDS or Whittingdale (they have both said so) and Patel I now doubt too.
Which leaves just Grayling or Fox. They will have a bash if there's no-one else but I'm not sure I trust them to do it in the right way.
'If Osborne decides to strip down member's voting rights on the leadership then what't the bloody point in being a member?'
I think the Conservative leadership have made it abundantly clear they would rather not have to deal with the members at all, and indeed they don't need them for the purposes of staying in office. The result of May's election, where Labour's 'ground game' proved so pitifully inadequate, will only have strengthened that view.
That is a wrong reading of May. The Tory targeting was only effective because the party foot-soldiers identified the targets, then delivered the personalised letters to them.
WRT to the changes on the way CB will be calculated for kids living in Europe. It is mentioned in the Mail today that with it being linked to the host country's RPI, some payments may rise faster than in the UK. Although the overall bill is expected to fall as so much of it goes to Poland. Are there any published figures for how much goes abroad and what proportion of the overall CB it is?
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Farage is a busted flush. I want Leave to win, probably more than you do, but if Farage is going to take up the whole stage an not leave any room for anyone else then Leave will struggle to get above 40%.
He's not though is he (going to take up the whole stage, the busted flush is subjective)
But by being UKIP leader he is not letting anyone else on the stage. If the main party of out is being led by someone so toxic this is the natural response. Moderates are being repelled by his leadership. He needs to stand down and let a moderate take his place, even if it is just until after the referendum and then he can oust whoever replaces him for all I care.
The Mail are furious with the Tories, and desperate.
That much is obvious. Desperation is not a good look though.
If it really is a pitch to Boris Johnson, I suggest that it is colossally misjudged. The World War Two analogy is crazy. The reference to England (not the UK) is crazy. The writer seems to have realised both defects because he tries to distance himself from both of them. But when the Out camp's biggest weakness is being perceived as backward-looking little Englanders, the correct course of action would be to scrunch up the draft, throw it in the bin and start again.
As a pitch to try to poach angry readers from the Express, it works rather better.
MM - you may well be right. But I am not sure your view is shared higher up the chain.
I think the cult of invincibility has set in at the top. Hence Cameron daring anyone in the party, MPs or members, to defy him on this pitiful excuse for a deal. He thinks he can get away with anything now.
Away from the eu-froth, the big news is the PB Fantasy league table is tightening in the middle with a few breaking away from the peloton. Can we reel em back in...
TSE, like Liverpool, no shame in being 7th. Naturally I'm in the traditional spurs position.
Shamefully I'm 10th. But I'm going to Wembley.
blimey, that was a quick slump... the klopp effect?
Mr Jessop: I hope you get well soon and are able to escape from your darkened room.
I have not had a dry January BTW. January is a ghastly month: full of anniversaries of deaths of loved ones so the only way to get through it is to fill it full of wonderful memories and life enhancing events to create new ones lubricated by good food and even better wine
Any vaguely dry nonsense can happen in Lent - starting next Wednesday - for any of you lapsed Catholics out there..... !
Do you not count Grayling, IDS etc? It seems that Grayling wants to come out for Leave but has been told to wait (or resign, presumably).
It won't be IDS or Whittingdale (they have both said so) and Patel I now doubt too.
Which leaves just Grayling or Fox. They will have a bash if there's no-one else but I'm not sure I trust them to do it in the right way.
Do you think Grayling or Fox would be viable leadership candidates (better than rank outsiders)? I dislike the idea so much that I don't think I'm assessing it rationally.
Away from the eu-froth, the big news is the PB Fantasy league table is tightening in the middle with a few breaking away from the peloton. Can we reel em back in...
TSE, like Liverpool, no shame in being 7th. Naturally I'm in the traditional spurs position.
Shamefully I'm 10th. But I'm going to Wembley.
blimey, that was a quick slump... the klopp effect?
I was second until the middle of December. I've collapsed like the Lib Dems in the South West
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Farage is a busted flush. I want Leave to win, probably more than you do, but if Farage is going to take up the whole stage an not leave any room for anyone else then Leave will struggle to get above 40%.
He's not though is he (going to take up the whole stage, the busted flush is subjective)
But by being UKIP leader he is not letting anyone else on the stage. If the main party of out is being led by someone so toxic this is the natural response. Moderates are being repelled by his leadership. He needs to stand down and let a moderate take his place, even if it is just until after the referendum and then he can oust whoever replaces him for all I care.
Plenty of people like Farage, he is marginally more disliked than Cameron among people who bother to answer political polls.
Thd toxicity you think surrounds him didn't stop him beating Clegg up pre Euros, win the euros, and quadruple the UKIP vote at the GE. I'd look at real numbers not opinion polls or opinions of trolls
The follow up to Cameron’s fandango with Tusk misses the point. Although Cameron tried to set the agenda for the referendum, events on the ground have greater power to determine people’s attitude to the EU.
A fandango between characters called Cameron and Tusk sounds like an episode in a Babar book.......
Away from the eu-froth, the big news is the PB Fantasy league table is tightening in the middle with a few breaking away from the peloton. Can we reel em back in...
TSE, like Liverpool, no shame in being 7th. Naturally I'm in the traditional spurs position.
Shamefully I'm 10th. But I'm going to Wembley.
blimey, that was a quick slump... the klopp effect?
I was second until the middle of December. I've collapsed like the Lib Dems in the South West
relegation form - there's always one team which slumps each year....
Starting to think about a bet on Rubio for POTUS. Anyone done much thinking on his route to win over Clinton (I'm assuming here that he wins GOP primary races)? The key swing states seem to be:
Do you not count Grayling, IDS etc? It seems that Grayling wants to come out for Leave but has been told to wait (or resign, presumably).
It won't be IDS or Whittingdale (they have both said so) and Patel I now doubt too.
Which leaves just Grayling or Fox. They will have a bash if there's no-one else but I'm not sure I trust them to do it in the right way.
Do you think Grayling or Fox would be viable leadership candidates (better than rank outsiders)? I dislike the idea so much that I don't think I'm assessing it rationally.
Possibly, if the EU goes seriously wrong, but as you say they are an acquired taste. Fox has a habit of putting people's noses out of joint and Grayling isn't particularly likeable.
Fox perhaps has slightly more of a shot than Grayling. I've got small bets on both at long odds.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
... when the Out camp's biggest weakness is being perceived as backward-looking little Englanders, the correct course of action would be to scrunch up the draft, throw it in the bin and start again.
I half wondered when that expression would surface in this debate. It has been refreshingly absent. Unlike in 1975. Anyway for which group is it more apposite, the Inners or the Outers?
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Farage is a busted flush. I want Leave to win, probably more than you do, but if Farage is going to take up the whole stage an not leave any room for anyone else then Leave will struggle to get above 40%.
He's not though is he (going to take up the whole stage, the busted flush is subjective)
But by being UKIP leader he is not letting anyone else on the stage. If the main party of out is being led by someone so toxic this is the natural response. Moderates are being repelled by his leadership. He needs to stand down and let a moderate take his place, even if it is just until after the referendum and then he can oust whoever replaces him for all I care.
Plenty of people like Farage, he is marginally more disliked than Cameron among people who bother to answer political polls.
Thd toxicity you think surrounds him didn't stop him beating Clegg up pre Euros, win the euros, and quadruple the UKIP vote at the GE. I'd look at real numbers not opinion polls or opinions of trolls
Yeah, real numbers:
UKIP - 12% with Nigel Tories - 38% with Dave.
Those are the numbers that matter, Dave is leading the main party if In and Nigel is leading the main party of out.
The voters who Nigel appeals to are already voting to Leave, they are going to turn out come what may, it's the people in the centre that need to be won over and Dave is a much friendlier face for them, whatever you think of Dave's stance on the EU there is no doubt that he can sell shit like it is gold.
Away from the eu-froth, the big news is the PB Fantasy league table is tightening in the middle with a few breaking away from the peloton. Can we reel em back in...
TSE, like Liverpool, no shame in being 7th. Naturally I'm in the traditional spurs position.
Shamefully I'm 10th. But I'm going to Wembley.
blimey, that was a quick slump... the klopp effect?
I was second until the middle of December. I've collapsed like the Lib Dems in the South West
relegation form - there's always one team which slumps each year....
well, I'm top, but will I be the Arsenal and baulk (or more relevantly, Norwich in 1992/3).
Who will speak for England? I know the Daily Mail world view sees the UK as a proxy for Greater England, but they're not usually so honest about it. Well done them.
... when the Out camp's biggest weakness is being perceived as backward-looking little Englanders, the correct course of action would be to scrunch up the draft, throw it in the bin and start again.
I half wondered when that expression would surface in this debate. It has been refreshingly absent. Unlike in 1975. Anyway for which group is it more apposite, the Inners or the Outers?
The problem is that he's right. Leave are not looking like broad and moderate coalition of people. It is Nigel Farage plus the Tory awkward squad. In order to win we have to build bridges and bring in moderate people.
Who will speak for England? I know the Daily Mail world view sees the UK as a proxy for Greater England, but they're not usually so honest about it. Well done them.
@Isam makes a fair point. Farage's record on European elections is not to be sniffed at. If euroskeptic Conservatives (and Labour) were able to find a way to work with him it would boost the Outers.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians have decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
The BOOers haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
Who will speak for England? I know the Daily Mail world view sees the UK as a proxy for Greater England, but they're not usually so honest about it. Well done them.
its a quote.
Arthur Greenwood I think?
Leo Amery speaking to Greenwood I think, in the Norway debate
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Poch = Farage...
not sure I'm having that
When Poch becomes Chelsea manager in the summer then
Poch = Reckless
I think there's more chance of Klopp becoming Chelsea manager.
He very nearly was. Rumour has it we sacked Rodgers when we did because Chelsea were sniffing around Jürgen Klopp (pbuh)
Yeah I know, if Klopp isn't backed with significant funds this summer Chelsea might try their luck, hold onto Hiddink for a while longer and get him in Liverpool's annual October/November slump.
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Farage is a busted flush. I want Leave to win, probably more than you do, but if Farage is going to take up the whole stage an not leave any room for anyone else then Leave will struggle to get above 40%.
He's not though is he (going to take up the whole stage, the busted flush is subjective)
But by being UKIP leader he is not letting anyone else on the stage. If the main party of out is being led by someone so toxic this is the natural response. Moderates are being repelled by his leadership. He needs to stand down and let a moderate take his place, even if it is just until after the referendum and then he can oust whoever replaces him for all I care.
Plenty of people like Farage, he is marginally more disliked than Cameron among people who bother to answer political polls.
Thd toxicity you think surrounds him didn't stop him beating Clegg up pre Euros, win the euros, and quadruple the UKIP vote at the GE. I'd look at real numbers not opinion polls or opinions of trolls
Yeah, real numbers:
UKIP - 12% with Nigel Tories - 38% with Dave.
Those are the numbers that matter, Dave is leading the main party if In and Nigel is leading the main party of out.
The voters who Nigel appeals to are already voting to Leave, they are going to turn out come what may, it's the people in the centre that need to be won over and Dave is a much friendlier face for them, whatever you think of Dave's stance on the EU there is no doubt that he can sell shit like it is gold.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
I very much doubt Boris Johnson would let that get in his way if he thought it in his interest otherwise.
Do you not count Grayling, IDS etc? It seems that Grayling wants to come out for Leave but has been told to wait (or resign, presumably).
It won't be IDS or Whittingdale (they have both said so) and Patel I now doubt too.
Which leaves just Grayling or Fox. They will have a bash if there's no-one else but I'm not sure I trust them to do it in the right way.
Do you think Grayling or Fox would be viable leadership candidates (better than rank outsiders)? I dislike the idea so much that I don't think I'm assessing it rationally.
Possibly, if the EU goes seriously wrong, but as you say they are an acquired taste. Fox has a habit of putting people's noses out of joint and Grayling isn't particularly likeable.
Fox perhaps has slightly more of a shot than Grayling. I've got small bets on both at long odds.
I have a raft of long odds bets on the next story leader.
It will not be Fox or Grayling. They've joined the ranks of Davis, Clarke and Redwood as simply having been in the public eye for too long. In modern world this generally means unpopularity. In those particular case there are other more pertinent negatives about both (not exactly successful records in ministerial briefs).
I was topping up on this market last night - added Greg Clarke and increased punts on Jesse Norman and Rory Stewart. I think all three could lead the party irrespective of the result of the vote.
Reading through coverage of PMQs yesterday, Cameron just sounds ridiculous. This deal is a 'massive return of powers to the UK'?? Really?? Even Richard Nabavi doesn't have the nerve to try that defence!
He also said "youve welfare powers back, youve got immigration powers back". What are the immigration powers we got back? The welfare ones you mentioned already? The ones where power still lies with the EU Council?? He's just hurting his credibility with such ridiculous claims.
If arsenal win the title and spurs finish second is it ok to call Poch a massive busted flush/failure despite getting Spurs to their best premier league finish?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians haver decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
They haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
I'm not sure that Hague and Boris have ever been Eurosceptic, have they? So not at all surprising that they wouldn't support a case they..... er .... don't support.
There are three cases which, arguably, need making:-
1. The case for staying on current terms. 2. The case for reforming the EU and/or reforming the basis on which the UK stays in the EU. 3. The case for leaving.
No-one has really made case 1 - other than the Lib Dems - though I suspect a lot of our politicians believe that case is made out and does not arguing. A mistake IMO.
2 is what the Remain argument is now about. It started out as reforming the EU and is now just about the UK's position in it. The so-called deal amounts to very little in practice. So that is what the Remain case - in the end - amounts to , no matter how much Cameron and others try and claim that the UK has some sort of new dispensation. If he were really serious about a new dispensation he would have seriously considered and proceeded on the basis of the associate membership suggestions offered by the EU itself.
I think that there are dangers - in the medium and long-term, for the Tories and the country in pretending that there has been some great reform when the reality is otherwise. Far better to argue for 1 and, crucially, spell out that that does not mean the status quo but that it means going in this direction with these consequences for X, Y and Z in the UK.
The case for leaving has been badly and incoherently put by the Leave campaign. The push factor is there but what is missing is the pull factor. What is the plausible alternative or range of choices? Its like someone leaving a job because they hate their boss but with no clear idea about what they want to do instead.
Who will speak for England? I know the Daily Mail world view sees the UK as a proxy for Greater England, but they're not usually so honest about it. Well done them.
its a quote.
Arthur Greenwood I think?
No it's not. If you'd read the piece, you'd have seen it was Leo Amery, who "bellowed across the floor: 'Speak for England!'", a peremptory demand rather than the current, rather whiny question.
Who will speak for England? I know the Daily Mail world view sees the UK as a proxy for Greater England, but they're not usually so honest about it. Well done them.
its a quote.
Arthur Greenwood I think?
Who will speak for England?
It's a question inspired by one of the most dramatic moments in the history of Parliamentary democracy.
The date was September 2, 1939, the day after Hitler invaded Poland. Tory PM Neville Chamberlain had just made an ambivalent statement to the House, proposing no immediate action.
On his backbenches, anti-appeasement stalwart Leo Amery was incensed. As Labour's deputy leader Arthur Greenwood rose to reply for the Opposition, the Tory MP bellowed across the floor: 'Speak for England!'
And Greenwood did just that, voicing anger over the premier's reluctance to honour Britain's treaty obligations to Poland. Bowing to the mood of the House, Chamberlain declared war on Hitler the next day.....
.....So we ask again: who will speak for England (and, of course, by 'England', like Amery in 1939, we mean the whole of the United Kingdom)
He also said "youve welfare powers back, youve got immigration powers back". What are the immigration powers we got back? The welfare ones you mentioned already? The ones where power still lies with the EU Council?? He's just hurting his credibility with such ridiculous claims.
Every person who tries to make out that this is some massive revision to the principles and direction of the EU looks like a chump.
I think Cameron realised belatedly that he was never going to get a big deal, and following his own logical position he would end up by default on the leaving side. So instead he asked for nothing, got nothing, and now is trying to sell nothing. The more this continues the more foolish he and his supporters look.
The whole renegotiation process has been a waste of time, we might as well hold the referendum right now with the existing state.
Oldies, with their final salary pensions plus guaranteed inflation busting rise in the state pension, having paid off their £50k mortgages on their half million pound houses, can now watch free TV and if they get bored, catch the free bus somewhere.
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians haver decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
They haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
I'm not sure that Hague and Boris have ever been Eurosceptic, have they? So not at all surprising that they wouldn't support a case they..... er .... don't support.
Well, Hague did the "save the pound" schtick during the core-vote phase of his leadership.
But Conservatives have tended to be more Eurosceptic in opposition than in power.
Do you not count Grayling, IDS etc? It seems that Grayling wants to come out for Leave but has been told to wait (or resign, presumably).
It won't be IDS or Whittingdale (they have both said so) and Patel I now doubt too.
Which leaves just Grayling or Fox. They will have a bash if there's no-one else but I'm not sure I trust them to do it in the right way.
Do you think Grayling or Fox would be viable leadership candidates (better than rank outsiders)? I dislike the idea so much that I don't think I'm assessing it rationally.
Possibly, if the EU goes seriously wrong, but as you say they are an acquired taste. Fox has a habit of putting people's noses out of joint and Grayling isn't particularly likeable.
Fox perhaps has slightly more of a shot than Grayling. I've got small bets on both at long odds.
I have a raft of long odds bets on the next story leader.
It will not be Fox or Grayling. They've joined the ranks of Davis, Clarke and Redwood as simply having been in the public eye for too long. In modern world this generally means unpopularity. In those particular case there are other more pertinent negatives about both (not exactly successful records in ministerial briefs).
I was topping up on this market last night - added Greg Clarke and increased punts on Jesse Norman and Rory Stewart. I think all three could lead the party irrespective of the result of the vote.
Jesse Norman is my dream ticket. I'm up +£2.5k if it's him.
Who will speak for England? I know the Daily Mail world view sees the UK as a proxy for Greater England, but they're not usually so honest about it. Well done them.
its a quote.
Arthur Greenwood I think?
And Greenwood did just that
Its worth remembering that for most of its history the Labour party has been robustly patriotic - who built our atom bomb?
On his backbenches, anti-appeasement stalwart Leo Amery was incensed. As Labour's deputy leader Arthur Greenwood rose to reply for the Opposition, the Tory MP bellowed across the floor: 'Speak for England!'
And Greenwood did just that, voicing anger over the premier's reluctance to honour Britain's treaty obligations to Poland.
Ah, so the Mail is arguing that we should stick to our treaty obligations to our EU friends. I'd misunderstood, I assumed they meant the opposite.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Why should a little thing like that get in the way of his dream of being PM?
Look at Ken Clarke. A man who would not bend in his Europhilia. It cost him the top job.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
I very much doubt Boris Johnson would let that get in his way if he thought it in his interest otherwise.
That's it. Boris will want to win or at least run Remain so close he's the King over the water.
If he thinks there's little chance he won't put his head above the paraphet to be the fall guy, like the rest of the Tories.
But personally I think it's the only realistic shot he has and is uniquely placed to take advantage of it.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians have decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
The BOOers haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
Or they are convinced of the case but don't think they can win.
Incidentally, I never said the party is overwhelmingly in favour of leaving but I did say it's over half.
Who will speak for England? I know the Daily Mail world view sees the UK as a proxy for Greater England, but they're not usually so honest about it. Well done them.
its a quote.
Arthur Greenwood I think?
No it's not. If you'd read the piece, you'd have seen it was Leo Amery, who "bellowed across the floor: 'Speak for England!'", a peremptory demand rather than the current, rather whiny question.
Everything has to be so literal doesn't it?
Nowhere near all the whine heard from North of the border for the last decade.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians have decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
The BOOers haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
No they have decided that they have more chance of staying in or winning high office by sticking with Cameron than by being seen to be disloyal. Obviously I hope this comes back to bite them.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
I very much doubt Boris Johnson would let that get in his way if he thought it in his interest otherwise.
That's it. Boris will want to win or at least run Remain so close he's the King over the water.
If he thinks there's little chance he won't put his head above the paraphet to be the fall guy, like the rest of the Tories.
But personally I think it's the only realistic shot he has and is uniquely placed to take advantage of it.
I'll rephrase my earlier comment: maybe Boris doesn't think he could play the part of a BOOer convincingly.
@iainmartin1: Imagine how much easier wld have been for Leave to unify if Farage had quit post-election + Suzanne Evans was now UKIP leader.
Yeah and as an Arsenal supporter I wish Pochettino would be replaced by Ossie Ardiles
Farage is a busted flush. I want Leave to win, probably more than you do, but if Farage is going to take up the whole stage an not leave any room for anyone else then Leave will struggle to get above 40%.
He's not though is he (going to take up the whole stage, the busted flush is subjective)
But by being UKIP leader he is not letting anyone else on the stage. If the main party of out is being led by someone so toxic this is the natural response. Moderates are being repelled by his leadership. He needs to stand down and let a moderate take his place, even if it is just until after the referendum and then he can oust whoever replaces him for all I care.
Plenty of people like Farage, he is marginally more disliked than Cameron among people who bother to answer political polls.
Thd toxicity you think surrounds him didn't stop him beating Clegg up pre Euros, win the euros, and quadruple the UKIP vote at the GE. I'd look at real numbers not opinion polls or opinions of trolls
Yeah, real numbers:
UKIP - 12% with Nigel Tories - 38% with Dave.
Those are the numbers that matter, Dave is leading the main party if In and Nigel is leading the main party of out.
The voters who Nigel appeals to are already voting to Leave, they are going to turn out come what may, it's the people in the centre that need to be won over and Dave is a much friendlier face for them, whatever you think of Dave's stance on the EU there is no doubt that he can sell shit like it is gold.
To be fair, the Conservatives would get 30% if Nick Griffin or Jeremy Corbyn were the leader. That's the level that they can't fall below/
Or they are convinced of the case but don't think they can win.
Incidentally, I never said the party is overwhelmingly in favour of leaving but I did say it's over half.
That's significant.
Not thinking they can win is much the same thing, isn't it? The case hasn't been made.
Hard to say how many in the party will vote leave. Certainly there are many party members who are firmly on the leave side. There are a few (not many) who take the Ken Clarke/Damian Green pro-EU position. Some are not enthusiastic about the EU but think membership is a necessary evil, for economic reasons. And some are somewhere in the middle: extremely frustrated by the EU, but not necessarily convinced Leavers.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
I very much doubt Boris Johnson would let that get in his way if he thought it in his interest otherwise.
That's it. Boris will want to win or at least run Remain so close he's the King over the water.
If he thinks there's little chance he won't put his head above the paraphet to be the fall guy, like the rest of the Tories.
But personally I think it's the only realistic shot he has and is uniquely placed to take advantage of it.
I don't think Boris would be much of an asset to Leave, now.
@Cyclefree If you read their opining pieces in the Torygraph you would surely conclude they are eurosceptics.
I think that too much of the sceptic case is based what I don't like about the EU - of which there is much. But there is too little about why I don't like it and why this (insert proposal etc) would be better. And there is too little unwillingness actually to go out and argue for it within Europe itself and build alliances etc etc.
So it all ends up defaulting to a generalised grumble - which could probably be shared by many within other European nations - coupled sometimes by a "God, aren't foreigners ghastly!" moan.
An intelligent sceptical case would be more about an alternative, an alternative which would or could be attractive to others.
If I may be forgiven for following the WW2 analogy, it's as if some of the Leavers have looked at that wonderful 1940 Low cartoon ("Very well. Alone") and decided to replace it with someone standing on the beach at Dover mooning in the direction of France.
Meanwhile Cameron is pretending that he's won Agincourt when in reality he's more like King John, retreating on all fronts.
No they have decided that they have more chance of staying in or winning high office by sticking with Cameron than by being seen to be disloyal. Obviously I hope this comes back to bite them.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians have decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
The BOOers haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
No they have decided that they have more chance of staying in or winning high office by sticking with Cameron than by being seen to be disloyal. Obviously I hope this comes back to bite them.
So all of them ditch their principles in favour of the chance of eventually getting high office? Not even one of them believes sufficiently in 'Leave' to take the risk, which of course could be their way of making their name and leapfrogging others. Isn't it more likely that they have decided that Leave will lose and they don't want to be associated with failure?
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians have decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
The BOOers haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
Or perhaps the annoyance is down to the realisation that euroscepticism is something the Conservaives do in Opposition, not in Government.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
I very much doubt Boris Johnson would let that get in his way if he thought it in his interest otherwise.
That's it. Boris will want to win or at least run Remain so close he's the King over the water.
If he thinks there's little chance he won't put his head above the paraphet to be the fall guy, like the rest of the Tories.
But personally I think it's the only realistic shot he has and is uniquely placed to take advantage of it.
I'll rephrase my earlier comment: maybe Boris doesn't think he could play the part of a BOOer convincingly.
There are three things going on here:
(1) They don't think they can win (2) Osborne has promised them the four horsemen of the apocalypse if they cross him (3) Most of them will need to be re-selected on the new boundaries, and CCHQ is threatening to interfere, and UKIP is a busted flush so they feel it's the Tories or they're out
I find so much more wisdom and taste in the rest of Europe-or at least those parts that make up it's backbone-that if shared sovereignty's as bad as it gets then I'm all for it. Twenty seven heads are better than one and I've never voted for that 'one' anyway.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
I very much doubt Boris Johnson would let that get in his way if he thought it in his interest otherwise.
That's it. Boris will want to win or at least run Remain so close he's the King over the water.
If he thinks there's little chance he won't put his head above the paraphet to be the fall guy, like the rest of the Tories.
But personally I think it's the only realistic shot he has and is uniquely placed to take advantage of it.
I don't think Boris would be much of an asset to Leave, now.
What I still can't get my head round is if more than half the Tory voters in 2015 want to Leave - and an even greater proportion of party members - then irrespective of whether the larger public vote to Remain, why has no ambitious soul positioned themselves to mop up that vote to get the leadership once Cameron goes?
What's the downside, Boris?
Perhaps the downside is the obvious, that he doesn't actually support Leave?
Precisely.
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians have decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
The BOOers haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
No they have decided that they have more chance of staying in or winning high office by sticking with Cameron than by being seen to be disloyal. Obviously I hope this comes back to bite them.
So all of them ditch their principles in favour of the chance of eventually getting high office? Not even one of them believes sufficiently in 'Leave' to take the risk, which of course could be their way of making their name and leapfrogging others. Isn't it more likely that they have decided that Leave will lose and they don't want to be associated with failure?
Politicians compromise on lots of things that they don't believe too strongly in. It's remarkable how the Leavers to a man assume - in defiance of all opinion poll evidence that the EU ranks low on most respondents' priority list - that everyone else should consider membership of the EU as a particularly important subject on which it is inconceivable to be ready to compromise.
Comments
Here are the politics: half or more Tory voters want to go. So far, there is *no one* in the entire parliamentary party prepared to speak for them.
If this remains the case, Remain may still win (personally, I think many Tories will vote Remain with a heavy heart out of fear for their leader and their pockets whatever they say) but they won't be happy about it.
Whoever takes a stand now will have massive quodos and credit for the next leadership contest - there are 80-100 BOO'ers, and at least half the membership - particularly if they fight a good and respectful (of Cameron) campaign.
That means there's a chance of beating Osborne too. Osborne knows this which is why he's trying to sew up the parliamentary party and, if he can get away with it through Lord Feldman, strip down members voting rights too.
The EU is doomed as surely as Rome was when Valentinian died. It'll take a while, but the emotive delinquency of Germany and Sweden has massively exacerbated the migrant crisis, the federalist ideologues have created economic woe with the single currency, and it'll take catastrophe for the true believers to finally permit reality to intrude upon their dreams.
The sooner we leave, the better.
Edited extra bit: kudos*, Mr. Royale.
I still think Osborne's at risk of re-enacting the Rise and Fall of Antigonus Monopthalmus.
Farage should resign now and hand over to Evans. It would get UKIP in the headlines and he could say, "I'm devoting my time to the grass roots campaign for UKIP to leave". That move alone would help moderate Tory MPs declare for leave.
Mr. W, it'll take something more. The migrant crisis deepening might do it. I'd be surprised, but then media cover-ups and political pressure coupled with police (at the top, at least) being unable or unwilling to stop crime or even report when suspects aren't white could lead to massive civil strife.
Reading PB, I see incontrovertible critiques of every possible party, expressed with considerable force. And I'd have to say that virtually all of these critiques have some substance.
It's hard to see me ever again finding someone suitable to vote for.
I think the Conservative leadership have made it abundantly clear they would rather not have to deal with the members at all, and indeed they don't need them for the purposes of staying in office. The result of May's election, where Labour's 'ground game' proved so pitifully inadequate, will only have strengthened that view.
I end up voting for the least bad option.
It occurred to me the other day that if Enoch read PB from way up in heaven, he might be embarrassed about, cringe at, my sycophancy, and remark upon it to people I disliked...
That would be the ultimate humiliation
What's the downside, Boris?
TSE, like Liverpool, no shame in being 7th. Naturally I'm in the traditional spurs position.
Which leaves just Grayling or Fox. They will have a bash if there's no-one else but I'm not sure I trust them to do it in the right way.
It is mentioned in the Mail today that with it being linked to the host country's RPI, some payments may rise faster than in the UK.
Although the overall bill is expected to fall as so much of it goes to Poland.
Are there any published figures for how much goes abroad and what proportion of the overall CB it is?
If it really is a pitch to Boris Johnson, I suggest that it is colossally misjudged. The World War Two analogy is crazy. The reference to England (not the UK) is crazy. The writer seems to have realised both defects because he tries to distance himself from both of them. But when the Out camp's biggest weakness is being perceived as backward-looking little Englanders, the correct course of action would be to scrunch up the draft, throw it in the bin and start again.
As a pitch to try to poach angry readers from the Express, it works rather better.
I think the cult of invincibility has set in at the top. Hence Cameron daring anyone in the party, MPs or members, to defy him on this pitiful excuse for a deal. He thinks he can get away with anything now.
I have not had a dry January BTW. January is a ghastly month: full of anniversaries of deaths of loved ones so the only way to get through it is to fill it full of wonderful memories and life enhancing events to create new ones lubricated by good food and even better wine
Any vaguely dry nonsense can happen in Lent - starting next Wednesday - for any of you lapsed Catholics out there..... !
not sure I'm having that
Thd toxicity you think surrounds him didn't stop him beating Clegg up pre Euros, win the euros, and quadruple the UKIP vote at the GE. I'd look at real numbers not opinion polls or opinions of trolls
Starting to think about a bet on Rubio for POTUS. Anyone done much thinking on his route to win over Clinton (I'm assuming here that he wins GOP primary races)? The key swing states seem to be:
Dem: Florida, 0.88%
Rep: North Carolina, 2.04%
Dem: Ohio, 2.98%
Dem: Virginia, 3.87%
(The figures are from Wikipedia and show the margin of victory in 2012).
Surely Florida falls to Rubio and with it 20-odd electoral seats. Virginia might be a key. Ohio almost certainly is.
Fox perhaps has slightly more of a shot than Grayling. I've got small bets on both at long odds.
Poch = Reckless
UKIP - 12% with Nigel
Tories - 38% with Dave.
Those are the numbers that matter, Dave is leading the main party if In and Nigel is leading the main party of out.
The voters who Nigel appeals to are already voting to Leave, they are going to turn out come what may, it's the people in the centre that need to be won over and Dave is a much friendlier face for them, whatever you think of Dave's stance on the EU there is no doubt that he can sell shit like it is gold.
Arthur Greenwood I think?
The puzzlement and anger of the Leave side at the fact that a whole raft of Eurosceptics - including Hague, Theresa May, Hammond, Boris, etc etc - are not supporting Leave is very revealing. For some reason, they find it hard to draw the obvious and clearly correct conclusion, namely that those politicians have decided that, on balance, the case for leaving is weak when you actually look at the alternatives.
The BOOers haven't made the case. It's as simple as that. No conspiracy, treachery, or talk of putting career over principle makes sense. After all, if it were really the case, as the BOOers claim, that the Conservative Party is overwhelming in favour of leaving (I'm sceptical about this, but others seem to think it's a fact), then the ambitious Tory politicians would be motivated to lead the Leave side.
X 38% and 12%?
He'll appeal to people who'd vote Leave anyway, and put off floating voters. He's a liability for Leave.
It will not be Fox or Grayling. They've joined the ranks of Davis, Clarke and Redwood as simply having been in the public eye for too long. In modern world this generally means unpopularity. In those particular case there are other more pertinent negatives about both (not exactly successful records in ministerial briefs).
I was topping up on this market last night - added Greg Clarke and increased punts on Jesse Norman and Rory Stewart. I think all three could lead the party irrespective of the result of the vote.
He also said "youve welfare powers back, youve got immigration powers back". What are the immigration powers we got back? The welfare ones you mentioned already? The ones where power still lies with the EU Council?? He's just hurting his credibility with such ridiculous claims.
If arsenal win the title and spurs finish second is it ok to call Poch a massive busted flush/failure despite getting Spurs to their best premier league finish?
Farron's anonymous, Corbyn's a jester, Farage a busted flush, and it seems no senior Conservative is willing to put their head above the parapet.
I'm not sure that Hague and Boris have ever been Eurosceptic, have they? So not at all surprising that they wouldn't support a case they..... er .... don't support.
There are three cases which, arguably, need making:-
1. The case for staying on current terms.
2. The case for reforming the EU and/or reforming the basis on which the UK stays in the EU.
3. The case for leaving.
No-one has really made case 1 - other than the Lib Dems - though I suspect a lot of our politicians believe that case is made out and does not arguing. A mistake IMO.
2 is what the Remain argument is now about. It started out as reforming the EU and is now just about the UK's position in it. The so-called deal amounts to very little in practice. So that is what the Remain case - in the end - amounts to , no matter how much Cameron and others try and claim that the UK has some sort of new dispensation. If he were really serious about a new dispensation he would have seriously considered and proceeded on the basis of the associate membership suggestions offered by the EU itself.
I think that there are dangers - in the medium and long-term, for the Tories and the country in pretending that there has been some great reform when the reality is otherwise. Far better to argue for 1 and, crucially, spell out that that does not mean the status quo but that it means going in this direction with these consequences for X, Y and Z in the UK.
The case for leaving has been badly and incoherently put by the Leave campaign. The push factor is there but what is missing is the pull factor. What is the plausible alternative or range of choices? Its like someone leaving a job because they hate their boss but with no clear idea about what they want to do instead.
It's a question inspired by one of the most dramatic moments in the history of Parliamentary democracy.
The date was September 2, 1939, the day after Hitler invaded Poland. Tory PM Neville Chamberlain had just made an ambivalent statement to the House, proposing no immediate action.
On his backbenches, anti-appeasement stalwart Leo Amery was incensed. As Labour's deputy leader Arthur Greenwood rose to reply for the Opposition, the Tory MP bellowed across the floor: 'Speak for England!'
And Greenwood did just that, voicing anger over the premier's reluctance to honour Britain's treaty obligations to Poland. Bowing to the mood of the House, Chamberlain declared war on Hitler the next day.....
.....So we ask again: who will speak for England (and, of course, by 'England', like Amery in 1939, we mean the whole of the United Kingdom)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3430870/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-speak-England.html
I think Cameron realised belatedly that he was never going to get a big deal, and following his own logical position he would end up by default on the leaving side. So instead he asked for nothing, got nothing, and now is trying to sell nothing. The more this continues the more foolish he and his supporters look.
The whole renegotiation process has been a waste of time, we might as well hold the referendum right now with the existing state.
Oldies, with their final salary pensions plus guaranteed inflation busting rise in the state pension, having paid off their £50k mortgages on their half million pound houses, can now watch free TV and if they get bored, catch the free bus somewhere.
grrr
Utter tosh.
But Conservatives have tended to be more Eurosceptic in opposition than in power.
The current leadership is atypical
Look at Ken Clarke. A man who would not bend in his Europhilia. It cost him the top job.
Batman: - “Everyone thinks that just because I wear funny clothes and I have a Miss Piggy bag that I must be unable to run a business.”
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/feb/04/camilas-kids-company-the-inside-story-review-both-damning-and-vindicatory#comments
The comments summaries perfectly what the Guardian can’t quite bring themselves to say.
If he thinks there's little chance he won't put his head above the paraphet to be the fall guy, like the rest of the Tories.
But personally I think it's the only realistic shot he has and is uniquely placed to take advantage of it.
Incidentally, I never said the party is overwhelmingly in favour of leaving but I did say it's over half.
That's significant.
Nowhere near all the whine heard from North of the border for the last decade.
Hard to say how many in the party will vote leave. Certainly there are many party members who are firmly on the leave side. There are a few (not many) who take the Ken Clarke/Damian Green pro-EU position. Some are not enthusiastic about the EU but think membership is a necessary evil, for economic reasons. And some are somewhere in the middle: extremely frustrated by the EU, but not necessarily convinced Leavers.
So it all ends up defaulting to a generalised grumble - which could probably be shared by many within other European nations - coupled sometimes by a "God, aren't foreigners ghastly!" moan.
An intelligent sceptical case would be more about an alternative, an alternative which would or could be attractive to others.
If I may be forgiven for following the WW2 analogy, it's as if some of the Leavers have looked at that wonderful 1940 Low cartoon ("Very well. Alone") and decided to replace it with someone standing on the beach at Dover mooning in the direction of France.
Meanwhile Cameron is pretending that he's won Agincourt when in reality he's more like King John, retreating on all fronts.
Not even one of them believes sufficiently in 'Leave' to take the risk, which of course could be their way of making their name and leapfrogging others.
Isn't it more likely that they have decided that Leave will lose and they don't want to be associated with failure?
(1) They don't think they can win
(2) Osborne has promised them the four horsemen of the apocalypse if they cross him
(3) Most of them will need to be re-selected on the new boundaries, and CCHQ is threatening to interfere, and UKIP is a busted flush so they feel it's the Tories or they're out
But that's leadership. Y'know you, err, lead.
Why else are they in politics?
The difficulty isn't what, it's how.
https://twitter.com/achrisevans/status/695201570565308416
O/T http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35483691
Interesting piece from the BBC. It turns out there are more young black men at top universities than in prison.