Churchill too, he was in favour of a United States of Europe.
But not with the UK part of it
Churchill was in favour of the British Empire being an equal partner with the USE and USA. As that is no longer possible his views on the matter are irrelevant.
Oh for christ's sake, you do come up with some unbelievable asskissery sometimes. I suppose the government has nothing to do with the immigration service either, and yet by some miracle, the number of rejections of lawful visa applications through embassies suddenly went up by 18% last year. How could this have happened ? Easy, the word was sent down to look very closely at every application and give no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. The idea that there is no ministerial influence in the executive agencies is fatuous.
Yeah, yeah, the ONS are in on the conspiracy as well.
Well the ONS are just useless. I wouldn't assume conspiracy when incompetence is an option, especially where the ONS are concerned. Charlie Bean had a go at them on the weekend, for good reason.
Never attribute to malice, that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
Churchill too, he was in favour of a United States of Europe.
Wellington wasn't, though.
Hitler was in favour of the United State of Europe. With Germany being that State.
Don't be silly. Vichy was independent, and I think he planned to allow Hungary, Romania and the Kingdom of the two Scilies to retain their freedom as well.
William Hague who fought the 2001 General Election on 'saving the pound' and being in Europe not run by Europe is Pro-EU.
I've seen it all now.
Thing is: there's an equally strong argument to say that Conservative policy on the EU has become increasingly eurosceptic since the late 80s.
Most pro-EEC party there is Pro-SEA Pro-ERM Pro-Maastrict but with opt outs Wait and see on the euro Rule out euro for next parliament Rule out euro for good Referendum on constitution End to ever closer union Won't let matters rest there Repatriation of social and employment powers Bloomberg speech EU referendum Renegotiation Almost half the parliamentary party and over half of all activists wanting to Leave
We're the party of John Redwood and Ken Clarke. We're a broad church.
Hell those two even formed an alliance to back Ken Clarke as leader.
On the ICM poll - who would have thought that a month of the Conservative party tearing chunks out of each other, with no end in sight, would have led voters to consider alternatives?
Will you be pursuing this line of analysis when the NEV for the local elections foreshadows a Tory landslide ?
Delete "when", insert "if".
If the NEV were to indicate a likely Tory landslide at a time of continued Conservative feuding over the EU, that would in my view greatly increase the chance of a split in the Labour party. The Labour right will bring forward their assault on the leadership and if they lose they will feel that the prospects of breaking away successfully will be sharply increased. So they might actually do it.
Churchill too, he was in favour of a United States of Europe.
Wellington wasn't, though.
Hitler was in favour of the United State of Europe. With Germany being that State.
Don't be silly. Vichy was independent, and I think he planned to allow Hungary, Romania and the Kingdom of the two Scilies to retain their freedom as well.
"Nonetheless, Ms Merkel has also made serious mistakes. One way to understand how she has mishandled the refugee issue is to contrast it with her approach to the crisis in the eurozone. When it came to the euro, the chancellor’s approach was defined by a deep concern for public opinion in Germany, an understanding of the threats of moral hazard and unintended consequences, and an ability to find the middle-ground between EU countries such as Finland and Greece. Those qualities, combined with Germany’s financial clout, allowed Ms Merkel to emerge as the indispensable leader of Europe.
Faced with the refugee crisis, however, Ms Merkel adopted a very different, and much less successful, approach. She gambled on the tolerance of the German public. And rather than seeking out the European middle ground, she took a position far to the left of almost all the other EU countries.
As a result, the chancellor found herself losing support at home and unable to rally a coalition in Europe. Her position was made worse by the fact that she seemed to have lost her ability to look several moves ahead. She failed to see how Germany’s “welcome culture” would spark a fresh surge of refugees."
I would actually rate that as very restrained and polite. She deserves much, much harsher judgment.
Perhaps I should take a step back and explain my thinking.
I'm an occasional Conservative voter, and am not a member of any party (although I am occasionally seduced by the Lib Dems). I have no direct interest in whether the Conservatives split over the EU or not.
However, this poll (and yes, I know one poll does not make a trend, yet alone indicate the true situation) has me seriously freaked.
Why, if I'm not a Conservative?
The answer: Corbyn. I believe Corbyn would be a disaster for the country both fiscally, morally and socially. I was in my early twenties during the latter part of the Major government when the Conservative party tore itself to pieces over Europe, and in many ways it helped form my politics.
And now it might be happening again. Any 'Conservative' who splits the Conservative party and allows Corbyn in deserves to be cast into the lower depths of ConHome the lunatic asylum.
Okay, so I'm panicking slightly. But Conservatives need to ask what is more important: conducting this referendum in such a way as it splits the party and allows Corbyn in, or their side winning. (And yes, this applies to both remain and leave)
I wonder how radical a Chancellor Gove might be. Possibly very radical, which could make him a high-risk option for a government with a small majority.
William Hague who fought the 2001 General Election on 'saving the pound' and being in Europe not run by Europe is Pro-EU.
I've seen it all now.
Thing is: there's an equally strong argument to say that Conservative policy on the EU has become increasingly eurosceptic since the late 80s.
Most pro-EEC party there is Pro-SEA Pro-ERM Pro-Maastrict but with opt outs Wait and see on the euro Rule out euro for next parliament Rule out euro for good Referendum on constitution End to ever closer union Won't let matters rest there Repatriation of social and employment powers Bloomberg speech EU referendum Renegotiation Almost half the parliamentary party and over half of all activists wanting to Leave
The division in the Tory party is less about the leadership backing Remain than the way they've done it. Backbenchers had to force them to restore purdah. It took the electoral commission to make them have a fair question. Cameron went around promoting his deal, even after promising he'd stop doing it, while he inflicted a gag on Leave supporters. MPs were threatened with their careers ending if they backed Leave. Gove had warning shots fired across his nose that threatened sacking if he spoke out too much. Ministers were banned from accessing papers in their own departments, but only Leave supporting ones. Accurate NI data on immigration is being suppressed. Businessmen have been threatened with losing honours and govt contracts. Cameron claims Leave supporters don't care about job losses. Etc etc.
Cameron and his Remain supporters have done everything to poison debate. Yet they will be the first ones to complain about a split.
Utter nonsense from beginning to end. There's not a single true thing in your list of complaints, other than perhaps the point about job losses and the fact that Cameron, unsurprisingly, has been defending his deal, as is perfectly reasonable.
The simple truth is that Cameron has done exactly what he said, has delivered the referendum, exactly as promised, and has allowed not only MPs, but even Cabinet ministers to campaign on either side. He has put up with some very dubious stuff from some of his Leaver colleagues, such as IDS's unpleasant 'dodgy dossier' phrase, or Gove's nonsense over the weekend claiming that the Remain side were predicting all sorts of things that no-one has claimed. But all that is normal politics, and Leavers get far too excitable about it.
Of course it's obvious why the Leavers spend so much energy attacking Cameron, even though it is equally obvious that it's counter-productive.
I do hope Cameron is aware of your strenuous efforts on his behalf. It would be very sad if such passion were to be expended all for naught.
Oh for christ's sake, you do come up with some unbelievable asskissery sometimes. I suppose the government has nothing to do with the immigration service either, and yet by some miracle, the number of rejections of lawful visa applications through embassies suddenly went up by 18% last year. How could this have happened ? Easy, the word was sent down to look very closely at every application and give no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. The idea that there is no ministerial influence in the executive agencies is fatuous.
Yeah, yeah, the ONS are in on the conspiracy as well.
It was only a couple of weeks ago we were told on here it was madness to suggest No 10 had anything to do with Longworth being suspended.
Seems that No 10 will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to make sure Remain wins.
Trump inaccuracy that noone will actually care about #257:
Trump claim:
ISIS drowns “people in these massive steel cages where 40, 50, 60 people they dump it and they pull it up half an hour later with 50 people dead.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
Politico 'Fact':
Last June, ISIS released video of the group drowning five Iraqis in a cage. There are no reports of 40 to 60 victims.
By all means carry on being rude, but if millions like me sit on our hands rather than vote Tory at the next GE, Corbyn's getting his hands on the controls.
Indeed that is a danger.
I agree, for example all the stuff about the renegotiation being a fraud, Cameron lying, 'Europhiles', etc etc.
Tories should chillax, and concentrate on putting forward their different points of view on the referendum. Voters, not David Cameron or the government, will decide the issue.
Don't be silly, it's different when people bang on about incompetent, lying, cast iron Dave. That's just pointing out the truth, that is. In no way can that be seen as being rude.
Oh for christ's sake, you do come up with some unbelievable asskissery sometimes. I suppose the government has nothing to do with the immigration service either, and yet by some miracle, the number of rejections of lawful visa applications through embassies suddenly went up by 18% last year. How could this have happened ? Easy, the word was sent down to look very closely at every application and give no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. The idea that there is no ministerial influence in the executive agencies is fatuous.
Yeah, yeah, the ONS are in on the conspiracy as well.
Well the ONS are just useless. I wouldn't assume conspiracy when incompetence is an option, especially where the ONS are concerned. Charlie Bean had a go at them on the weekend, for good reason.
Never attribute to malice, that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
Also applicable to the EU, of course.
Incompetence has it's limits, even when it comes to this Government.
William Hague who fought the 2001 General Election on 'saving the pound' and being in Europe not run by Europe is Pro-EU.
I've seen it all now.
Thing is: there's an equally strong argument to say that Conservative policy on the EU has become increasingly eurosceptic since the late 80s.
Most pro-EEC party there is Pro-SEA Pro-ERM Pro-Maastrict but with opt outs Wait and see on the euro Rule out euro for next parliament Rule out euro for good Referendum on constitution End to ever closer union Won't let matters rest there Repatriation of social and employment powers Bloomberg speech EU referendum Renegotiation Almost half the parliamentary party and over half of all activists wanting to Leave
It will only be a few cycles until Leavers take over the leadership as well IMO. Even in London the party meetings I attend is mostly in favour of Leave.
Just await my appearance in Luton Sarf: Radical shock will be subtle....
Trump inaccuracy that noone will actually care about #257:
Trump claim:
ISIS drowns “people in these massive steel cages where 40, 50, 60 people they dump it and they pull it up half an hour later with 50 people dead.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
Politico 'Fact':
Last June, ISIS released video of the group drowning five Iraqis in a cage. There are no reports of 40 to 60 victims.
I wonder if Osborne is acting as a human shield for the party. I've never been convinced he wants the top job, and he's the one making a lot of very controversial decisions.
Perhaps he will want to remain as chancellor until the vast majority of the austerity policies are in place, and bequeath whoever takes over as chancellor and PM a much cleaner slate - any toxic legacies will remain with him.
I agree, for example all the stuff about the renegotiation being a fraud, Cameron lying, 'Europhiles', etc etc. Tories should chillax, and concentrate on putting forward their different points of view on the referendum. Voters, not David Cameron or the government, will decide the issue.
But Cameron is manipulating the result.
Now that the Lib Dems are no longer in government, Cameron has lost his fig leaf. He has to face the consequences of his own decisions. No wonder his hitherto loyal Tory hordes are disappointed with him.
@make_trouble: Corbyn on Zionist conspiracy influencing Home Office decisions. "Absolute not views of Labour Party". They are now. https://t.co/aJ1nzJSvSz
Trump inaccuracy that noone will actually care about #257:
Trump claim:
ISIS drowns “people in these massive steel cages where 40, 50, 60 people they dump it and they pull it up half an hour later with 50 people dead.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
Politico 'Fact':
Last June, ISIS released video of the group drowning five Iraqis in a cage. There are no reports of 40 to 60 victims.
Oh for christ's sake, you do come up with some unbelievable asskissery sometimes. I suppose the government has nothing to do with the immigration service either, and yet by some miracle, the number of rejections of lawful visa applications through embassies suddenly went up by 18% last year. How could this have happened ? Easy, the word was sent down to look very closely at every application and give no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. The idea that there is no ministerial influence in the executive agencies is fatuous.
Yeah, yeah, the ONS are in on the conspiracy as well.
You do love your straw men don't you Richard?? No one is claiming ONS is doing anything wrong. But Cameron was asked directly in parliament for those numbers, and he dodged the question when he could easily release the numbers. Why won't he provide them??
Oh for christ's sake, you do come up with some unbelievable asskissery sometimes. I suppose the government has nothing to do with the immigration service either, and yet by some miracle, the number of rejections of lawful visa applications through embassies suddenly went up by 18% last year. How could this have happened ? Easy, the word was sent down to look very closely at every application and give no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. The idea that there is no ministerial influence in the executive agencies is fatuous.
Yeah, yeah, the ONS are in on the conspiracy as well.
It was only a couple of weeks ago we were told on here it was madness to suggest No 10 had anything to do with Longworth being suspended.
Seems that No 10 will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to make sure Remain wins.
Richard told us that was nonsense as well, frankly for a previously highly respected poster I have never seen someone's credibility plummet quite so fast as over this issue.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You do love your straw men don't you Richard?? No one is claiming ONS is doing anything wrong. But Cameron was asked directly in parliament for those numbers, and he dodged the question when he could easily release the numbers. Why won't he provide them??
Eh? You said that the information was being suppressed. I pointed out that the ONS, far from suppressing the information, is working on collating it.
'The numbers' you ask for do not exist. As Cameron rightly said in PMQs, you can't simply take the NI numbers (which ARE published) because they don't measure migration. That is the entire point, the ONS hasn't done the reconcilation between the migration figures and HMRC's NI figures. They are now going to do that reconcilation, and they have said that, when they've done it, they will publish it. Nothing is being suppressed or dodged, by Cameron or anyone else.
David Herdson's argument that Michael Gove should be made Chancellor is worthy of very serious consideration.
Two points to note. First, David Cameron doesn't really do reshuffles. Secondly, he believes in standing by friends through thick and thin (for example, there was a lot of talk about moving George Osborne in 2012 and before that in 2009 when he was shadow Chancellor, all of which David Cameron ignored). Just about the only friend to have found himself surplus to requirements was Michael Gove himself. Whether or not he should move George Osborne - and I can see the argument that he should - it would be out of character for a man who has consistently set his face against pressure on his close friends.
As an outsider that strikes me as being totally wrong. Blair could not move Brown because brown had huge, independent support inside the Labour party from both the unions and a large contingent of labour MPs. Osborne seems to have none of that to call on. Unless Remain wins big, his future looks to be very bleak once Cameron steps down. And if that's the case, it must mean that Cameron could get rid of him tomorrow without too many internal problems.
David Herdson's argument that Michael Gove should be made Chancellor is worthy of very serious consideration.
Two points to note. First, David Cameron doesn't really do reshuffles. Secondly, he believes in standing by friends through thick and thin (for example, there was a lot of talk about moving George Osborne in 2012 and before that in 2009 when he was shadow Chancellor, all of which David Cameron ignored). Just about the only friend to have found himself surplus to requirements was Michael Gove himself. Whether or not he should move George Osborne - and I can see the argument that he should - it would be out of character for a man who has consistently set his face against pressure on his close friends.
Unless Osborne wants the change, which is possible.
Miss Plato, I think Hardman (like Neil and Raworth, although Hardman's a print journalist) should have more airtime. The likes of Dimbleby and Edwards offer little to proceedings.
Churchill too, he was in favour of a United States of Europe.
Wellington wasn't, though.
Hitler was in favour of the United State of Europe. With Germany being that State.
Don't be silly. Vichy was independent, and I think he planned to allow Hungary, Romania and the Kingdom of the two Scilies to retain their freedom as well.
On what basis do you say that? No-one will go in to bat for George.
Javid is the only loyal minister he has, and he has been tarnished within the party on both sides. He is seen as a traitor by Leave and as an Osborne toady by Remain.
Trump inaccuracy that noone will actually care about #257:
Trump claim:
ISIS drowns “people in these massive steel cages where 40, 50, 60 people they dump it and they pull it up half an hour later with 50 people dead.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
Politico 'Fact':
Last June, ISIS released video of the group drowning five Iraqis in a cage. There are no reports of 40 to 60 victims.
So he exaggerated the quantity but the core claim of what was said (that they're drowned alive in a cage) is factual?
On the ICM poll - who would have thought that a month of the Conservative party tearing chunks out of each other, with no end in sight, would have led voters to consider alternatives?
Will you be pursuing this line of analysis when the NEV for the local elections foreshadows a Tory landslide ?
Delete "when", insert "if".
If the NEV were to indicate a likely Tory landslide at a time of continued Conservative feuding over the EU, that would in my view greatly increase the chance of a split in the Labour party. The Labour right will bring forward their assault on the leadership and if they lose they will feel that the prospects of breaking away successfully will be sharply increased. So they might actually do it.
It's not impossible that Labour may in fact nudge ahead of the Conservatives in terms of NEV, while still achieving a very bad result.
Miss Plato, I think Hardman (like Neil and Raworth, although Hardman's a print journalist) should have more airtime. The likes of Dimbleby and Edwards offer little to proceedings.
Mr. Max, another problem for Javid is that he appears to be an utter lightweight. His piece on why we should Remain, which began with why we should never have joined, was unwitting satire.
A downing street aide called. Later the same day Longworth was suspended. We don't know what was said on the call, but the timeline is troubling
I am sure that a lot of people called to find out what was going on, for the simple reason that the Director General of the BCC, in a keynote speech at the BCC conference, appeared directly to contradict the BCC's official position.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You are talking about two parties inside one: the 'leavers' wanting things from the 'remainers'. That's a split party, and the electorate will reward it as they did Major's split government and Brown's.
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
The one thing that will assuredly send Tory polling lower will be for the two opposing sides in the EU ref blaming each other for the falling poll ratings.
The bad consequences of Brexit Written by Dr. Madsen Pirie
"Without the ability to send our weather across to Europe, thunder and hail will stay in Britain, and swarms of locusts will feed on the flattened crops.
Mr. Max, another problem for Javid is that he appears to be an utter lightweight. His piece on why we should Remain, which began with why we should never have joined, was unwitting satire.
He's also been disappointing at BIS. He's supposed to be pushing deregulation through in all departments. As far as I can see, there's nothing much to show for it.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You are talking about two parties inside one: the 'leavers' wanting things from the 'remainers'. That's a split party, and the electorate will reward it as they did Major's split government and Brown's.
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
People will never vote in a Corbyn-led party. His ratings, and Labour's, are diabolical.
Seems like a good few days for Trump has seen him push ahead in the polls. That Monmouth in Florida had Trump strengthening every day they were polling, a trend supported by other recent Florida polls and Yougov have him now on 53% nationally.
Ohio does appear to be the exception with Kasich outpacing Trump's push, Trump will have to squeeze Cruz because it looks like Rubio has collapsed to Kasich's benefit.
A downing street aide called. Later the same day Longworth was suspended. We don't know what was said on the call, but the timeline is troubling
I am sure that a lot of people called to find out what was going on, for the simple reason that the Director General of the BCC, in a keynote speech at the BCC conference, appeared directly to contradict the BCC's official position.
An aide who is actively involved in the remain campaign. And Longworth made clear he was expressing a personal view.
On the ICM poll - who would have thought that a month of the Conservative party tearing chunks out of each other, with no end in sight, would have led voters to consider alternatives?
Will you be pursuing this line of analysis when the NEV for the local elections foreshadows a Tory landslide ?
Delete "when", insert "if".
If the NEV were to indicate a likely Tory landslide at a time of continued Conservative feuding over the EU, that would in my view greatly increase the chance of a split in the Labour party. The Labour right will bring forward their assault on the leadership and if they lose they will feel that the prospects of breaking away successfully will be sharply increased. So they might actually do it.
It's not impossible that Labour may in fact nudge ahead of the Conservatives in terms of NEV, while still achieving a very bad result.
Gove's Privy Council problems will pass. I still maintain the question to be asked of that story is cui bono?
This is true as far is it goes, but quite a lot of people would have in interest in giving the story circulation. It's possible it came from Gove, but equally possible, and I would argue more likely, that he dictated a minute to someone recording his impression of the meeting and any actions arising, and the minute taker, the person who typed it, the person who filed it, any of their friends they might have mentioned it to, or anyone else else present in the room at that time or when he possibly discussed it with his ministers (remembers that all the justice ministers are leavers) felt the need to have a beer with a journalist friend. This is even if we discount entirely the possibility that a remainer leaked it to embarrass Gove.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You are talking about two parties inside one: the 'leavers' wanting things from the 'remainers'. That's a split party, and the electorate will reward it as they did Major's split government and Brown's.
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
Which is the point of Dave hanging on as PM. The leader of the party and remain campaign stays on. It would be a "unity" cabinet.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You are talking about two parties inside one: the 'leavers' wanting things from the 'remainers'. That's a split party, and the electorate will reward it as they did Major's split government and Brown's.
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
People will never vote in a Corbyn-led party. His ratings, and Labour's, are diabolical.
But disaffected Tories might sit on their hands and not bother voting. And that's to Labour advantage. And if Corbyn's replaced?
And Longworth made clear he was expressing a personal view.
No, he didn't, that was the whole point. In any case, the Director General of an organisation, speaking in his official role in a keynote speech about a very controversial matter, can't realistically express a personal view which contradicts his own organisation's official position, without an almighty row erupting within the organisation - which is what happened.
In any case, no-one has ever answered my obvious point: No 10 doesn't get to boss around the British Chambers of Commerce.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You are talking about two parties inside one: the 'leavers' wanting things from the 'remainers'. That's a split party, and the electorate will reward it as they did Major's split government and Brown's.
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
People will never vote in a Corbyn-led party. His ratings, and Labour's, are diabolical.
That complacency might just come to bite you. It's not just a case of the Labour party winning; it's a case of the Conservatives losing.
And those are the ratings at the moment. They might improve. I think I'm right in saying it's unusual for ratings to increase; but given Corbyn's dire start it might well be possible.
Or imagine another scenario: complacent Conservatives tear the party in two over the EU, thinking they are safe because Corbyn is unelectable. In the meantime Corbyn changes the Labour party in his vision, then steps down a year before the GE. His replacement is someone who is pretty much of Corbyn's mindset, but a much fresher slate.
The attacks on his replacement might well be less strident than they were against Corbyn: the Conservatives tearing themselves apart will provide better copy, and Labour leaders with odd views will not be so much of a story after Corbyn. And it would be hard for the replacement to be worse.
Yesterday's thread about Osborne's departure date, had a section tipping Gove as next Chancellor in a post referendum reshuffle.
I ditched that bit because of his Privy Counsel problems.
I did make a change for one of your threads to get in the way of one of mine.
Gove's Privy Council problems will pass. I still maintain the question to be asked of that story is cui bono?
Which thread was that?
Sorry - strange autocorrect there I think: it should have said "It makes a change for one of your threads to get in the way of one of mine".
Hah yes.
Also as Mr Meeks has noted, whilst Corbyn has been leader, the advance preparation of threads has become a nightmare.
Just prior to the Syria vote, between Thursday lunchtime and Saturday evening, I wrote four threads for the Sunday that had to be trashed simply because events/clusterfeck had moved on rapidly.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the military to withdraw the "main part" of their forces in Syria, saying they had largely achieved their goals.
Mr. Max, another problem for Javid is that he appears to be an utter lightweight. His piece on why we should Remain, which began with why we should never have joined, was unwitting satire.
He's also been disappointing at BIS. He's supposed to be pushing deregulation through in all departments. As far as I can see, there's nothing much to show for it.
And Longworth made clear he was expressing a personal view.
No, he didn't, that was the whole point. In any case, the Director General of an organisation, speaking in his official role in a keynote speech about a very controversial matter, can't realistically express a personal view which contradicts his own organisation's official position, without an almighty row erupting within the organisation - which is what happened.
In any case, no-one has ever answered my obvious point: No 10 doesn't get to boss around the British Chambers of Commerce.
To Longworth we may watch the head of Gove being added to a growing list. Funny how its only LEAVERS watching their careers affected by Govt action.
Richard's metamorphosis into a third-rate spinner has been sad to see.
Richard_Nabavi is still a highly respected member of the PB community imho. - This general unpleasantness towards other PBers is a recent phenomenon and quite unnecessary.
I think that is arguably true, incredible though it seems. I was expecting Javid to be good, but so far I think he's probably the most disappointing of all the 2015 cabinet appointments.
And Longworth made clear he was expressing a personal view.
No, he didn't, that was the whole point. In any case, the Director General of an organisation, speaking in his official role in a keynote speech about a very controversial matter, can't realistically express a personal view which contradicts his own organisation's official position, without an almighty row erupting within the organisation - which is what happened.
In any case, no-one has ever answered my obvious point: No 10 doesn't get to boss around the British Chambers of Commerce.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You are talking about two parties inside one: the 'leavers' wanting things from the 'remainers'. That's a split party, and the electorate will reward it as they did Major's split government and Brown's.
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
People will never vote in a Corbyn-led party. His ratings, and Labour's, are diabolical.
That complacency might just come to bite you. It's not just a case of the Labour party winning; it's a case of the Conservatives losing.
And those are the ratings at the moment. They might improve. I think I'm right in saying it's unusual for ratings to increase; but given Corbyn's dire start it might well be possible.
Or imagine another scenario: complacent Conservatives tear the party in two over the EU, thinking they are safe because Corbyn is unelectable. In the meantime Corbyn changes the Labour party in his vision, then steps down a year before the GE. His replacement is someone who is pretty much of Corbyn's mindset, but a much fresher slate.
The attacks on his replacement might well be less strident than they were against Corbyn: the Conservatives tearing themselves apart will provide better copy, and Labour leaders with odd views will not be so much of a story after Corbyn. And it would be hard for the replacement to be worse.
If Labour had a credible leader, then yes, I think things might go badly for the Conservatives. But Corbyn, no. Don't forget, Labour are just as divided as the Conservatives.
In any case, no-one has ever answered my obvious point: No 10 doesn't get to boss around the British Chambers of Commerce.
No one bosses people around as well you know, but allusions can be made, and implications given that new favours for those being helpful to the government might occur, or those favours currently expected might run into difficulties. People in top positions of those organisations know how the game is played and what is expected of them.
On the ICM poll - who would have thought that a month of the Conservative party tearing chunks out of each other, with no end in sight, would have led voters to consider alternatives?
Will you be pursuing this line of analysis when the NEV for the local elections foreshadows a Tory landslide ?
Delete "when", insert "if".
If the NEV were to indicate a likely Tory landslide at a time of continued Conservative feuding over the EU, that would in my view greatly increase the chance of a split in the Labour party. The Labour right will bring forward their assault on the leadership and if they lose they will feel that the prospects of breaking away successfully will be sharply increased. So they might actually do it.
It's not impossible that Labour may in fact nudge ahead of the Conservatives in terms of NEV, while still achieving a very bad result.
Every business secretary or their equivalent since the early 1990s has claimed they would cut red tape. All of them have done the opposite, or more accurately been in office as the opposite has happened.
And of course one reason for this is that they have had zero control over the deluge of regulation coming from abroad, ie. from the EU.
The post of business secretary, frankly, might as well be abolished.
The one thing that will assuredly send Tory polling lower will be for the two opposing sides in the EU ref blaming each other for the falling poll ratings.
This poll may be the type of shock to force Cameron to call the govt dogs off with their all out campaign for REMAIN. Particularly if they conclude that Osborne's chances of taking over are receding the more bitterness is piled up.
Good article, David. I disagree and think Dave will manage to hold on even after Leave. He will sacrifice Osborne, Hammond and Javid which will probably be enough for the Leavers to be getting on with, especially since Dave is on his way out anyway. If Leave were to control the Treasury, FCO and BIS I think they would be happy. Especially given that Boris and Gove would have two out of those three posts and they would be in charge of the post-Leave negotiation.
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
You are talking about two parties inside one: the 'leavers' wanting things from the 'remainers'. That's a split party, and the electorate will reward it as they did Major's split government and Brown's.
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
People will never vote in a Corbyn-led party. His ratings, and Labour's, are diabolical.
That complacency might just come to bite you. It's not just a case of the Labour party winning; it's a case of the Conservatives losing.
And those are the ratings at the moment. They might improve. I think I'm right in saying it's unusual for ratings to increase; but given Corbyn's dire start it might well be possible.
Or imagine another scenario: complacent Conservatives tear the party in two over the EU, thinking they are safe because Corbyn is unelectable. In the meantime Corbyn changes the Labour party in his vision, then steps down a year before the GE. His replacement is someone who is pretty much of Corbyn's mindset, but a much fresher slate.
The attacks on his replacement might well be less strident than they were against Corbyn: the Conservatives tearing themselves apart will provide better copy, and Labour leaders with odd views will not be so much of a story after Corbyn. And it would be hard for the replacement to be worse.
If Labour had a credible leader, then yes, I think things might go badly for the Conservatives. But Corbyn, no. Don't forget, Labour are just as divided as the Conservatives.
I don't forget. But as the Conservatives may be busy committing seppuku, Labour might be able to coalesce.
It's a big, big mistake to assume the Conservatives can in any way 'afford' a split.
Perhaps I should take a step back and explain my thinking.
I'm an occasional Conservative voter, and am not a member of any party (although I am occasionally seduced by the Lib Dems). I have no direct interest in whether the Conservatives split over the EU or not.
However, this poll (and yes, I know one poll does not make a trend, yet alone indicate the true situation) has me seriously freaked.
Why, if I'm not a Conservative?
The answer: Corbyn. I believe Corbyn would be a disaster for the country both fiscally, morally and socially. I was in my early twenties during the latter part of the Major government when the Conservative party tore itself to pieces over Europe, and in many ways it helped form my politics.
And now it might be happening again. Any 'Conservative' who splits the Conservative party and allows Corbyn in deserves to be cast into the lower depths of ConHome the lunatic asylum.
Okay, so I'm panicking slightly. But Conservatives need to ask what is more important: conducting this referendum in such a way as it splits the party and allows Corbyn in, or their side winning. (And yes, this applies to both remain and leave)
FFS, pull yourselves together.
Ah, it's the Gold Standard, y'know. Carry on freaking!
I find your approach odd. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that there is a common theme to all of these items: a hatred or contempt for women, a belief that they are lesser beings or less worthy of protection, education, rights. You seem to think that some of this is "not being sensible" and others "monstrous". Well, I agree that child rape is monstrous.
But unlike you I reject a culture which views women as lesser beings and not just those bits of it which lead to child rape. A culture which says that girls should be denied education or a role in the public space is not acceptable provided the men from such a culture manage, through heroic self-control, not to rape the women they think not as good as them.
I'm not sure we can advance much with the discussion. I don't agree with girls being denied education or a role in the public space or with thinking of women as lesser beings. But having audiences sit separately seems to me odd rather than outrageous, and tackling it a distraction from the things we should clearly reject. If the female part of the audience were only allowed to ask questions after the men, or disadvantaged in some other way, that would be different.
But I'm repeating myself, so I should leave it there...
Different perspectives. You're a man. You think it odd. I'm a woman. I think it outrageous.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is told by a man that she cannot do this, that or the other.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of someone like me who, when I first started as a lawyer, was told that one of the QC's in the chambers where I was training, refused to speak to women pupils "on principle". (The principle was never clearly elucidated other than his feeling that talking to educated and intelligent women was beneath him.)
Perhaps I should take a step back and explain my thinking.
I'm an occasional Conservative voter, and am not a member of any party (although I am occasionally seduced by the Lib Dems). I have no direct interest in whether the Conservatives split over the EU or not.
However, this poll (and yes, I know one poll does not make a trend, yet alone indicate the true situation) has me seriously freaked.
Why, if I'm not a Conservative?
The answer: Corbyn. I believe Corbyn would be a disaster for the country both fiscally, morally and socially. I was in my early twenties during the latter part of the Major government when the Conservative party tore itself to pieces over Europe, and in many ways it helped form my politics.
And now it might be happening again. Any 'Conservative' who splits the Conservative party and allows Corbyn in deserves to be cast into the lower depths of ConHome the lunatic asylum.
Okay, so I'm panicking slightly. But Conservatives need to ask what is more important: conducting this referendum in such a way as it splits the party and allows Corbyn in, or their side winning. (And yes, this applies to both remain and leave)
FFS, pull yourselves together.
Ah, it's the Gold Standard, y'know. Carry on freaking!
My views on the uselessness of polling have been aired since well before the last GE. It's just that even I underestimated their uselessness.
Comments
Also applicable to the EU, of course.
Hell those two even formed an alliance to back Ken Clarke as leader.
If the NEV were to indicate a likely Tory landslide at a time of continued Conservative feuding over the EU, that would in my view greatly increase the chance of a split in the Labour party. The Labour right will bring forward their assault on the leadership and if they lose they will feel that the prospects of breaking away successfully will be sharply increased. So they might actually do it.
I'm an occasional Conservative voter, and am not a member of any party (although I am occasionally seduced by the Lib Dems). I have no direct interest in whether the Conservatives split over the EU or not.
However, this poll (and yes, I know one poll does not make a trend, yet alone indicate the true situation) has me seriously freaked.
Why, if I'm not a Conservative?
The answer: Corbyn. I believe Corbyn would be a disaster for the country both fiscally, morally and socially. I was in my early twenties during the latter part of the Major government when the Conservative party tore itself to pieces over Europe, and in many ways it helped form my politics.
And now it might be happening again. Any 'Conservative' who splits the Conservative party and allows Corbyn in deserves to be cast into the lower depths of ConHome the lunatic asylum.
Okay, so I'm panicking slightly. But Conservatives need to ask what is more important: conducting this referendum in such a way as it splits the party and allows Corbyn in, or their side winning. (And yes, this applies to both remain and leave)
FFS, pull yourselves together.
I wonder how radical a Chancellor Gove might be. Possibly very radical, which could make him a high-risk option for a government with a small majority.
Seems that No 10 will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to make sure Remain wins.
Trump inaccuracy that noone will actually care about #257:
Trump claim:
ISIS drowns “people in these massive steel cages where 40, 50, 60 people they dump it and they pull it up half an hour later with 50 people dead.” (March 9 in Fayetteville, N.C.)
Politico 'Fact':
Last June, ISIS released video of the group drowning five Iraqis in a cage. There are no reports of 40 to 60 victims.
Michael Howard is the greatest Tory leader
He brought discipline showed the Tories how to win after nearly 12 years of constant defeats
He recognised talent and promoted his protégés (Cameron and Osborne) after the 2005GE
He stayed on as leader long enough for them to show their talents and beat Davis in a leadership contest
That led to the greatest Conservative victories in decades and the return of majority Tory rule
Michael Howard is so smart and full of foresight he wants to Leave the EU - he was right before and is right now
Michael Howard = greatest Tory leader of all time
Perhaps he will want to remain as chancellor until the vast majority of the austerity policies are in place, and bequeath whoever takes over as chancellor and PM a much cleaner slate - any toxic legacies will remain with him.
Or perhaps he just wants the top job.
Now that the Lib Dems are no longer in government, Cameron has lost his fig leaf. He has to face the consequences of his own decisions. No wonder his hitherto loyal Tory hordes are disappointed with him.
I ditched that bit because of his Privy Counsel problems.
He had it at about 16/1 on the eve of the election, and for most of the preceding months about 8/1.
The latest ICM has again conjured up a preposterously unrepresentative sample - 370 Lab/LD/Grn/SNP - compared to just 307 Con/UKIP.
Their sampling techniques (like most pollsters) are not working properly.
They clearly know it, judging by the following:
"Thirdly, this is the seventh out of ten ICM phone polls since the 2015 General Election which recalls voting in Ed Miliband as Prime Minister. "
Quick reminder that Pyrrhus was 2-1 up against the Romans. Didn't do him much good.
Khan winning London may help cement the bearded tit in place.
[Edited to delete an unnecessary word. And then to add these explaining that].
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/06/28/latest-projections-from-oxfords-stephen-fisher-have-the-battle-getting-tighter/
In the event of Remain, there is no way Osborne goes. Even though many in the party want him out Dave won't get rid of him, he sees Osborne as a crutch.
I didn't really believe it until recently - now I'm quite convinced. I think he needs moving pronto too.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/em8yhyeskh/LondonMayoralResults_March16_W.pdf
'The numbers' you ask for do not exist. As Cameron rightly said in PMQs, you can't simply take the NI numbers (which ARE published) because they don't measure migration. That is the entire point, the ONS hasn't done the reconcilation between the migration figures and HMRC's NI figures. They are now going to do that reconcilation, and they have said that, when they've done it, they will publish it. Nothing is being suppressed or dodged, by Cameron or anyone else.
Two points to note. First, David Cameron doesn't really do reshuffles. Secondly, he believes in standing by friends through thick and thin (for example, there was a lot of talk about moving George Osborne in 2012 and before that in 2009 when he was shadow Chancellor, all of which David Cameron ignored). Just about the only friend to have found himself surplus to requirements was Michael Gove himself. Whether or not he should move George Osborne - and I can see the argument that he should - it would be out of character for a man who has consistently set his face against pressure on his close friends.
And so was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V...it's a persistent delusion.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/arg-24082
Crosby and co. were right. The polls are largely nonsense. The most they provide is some general pattern of drift within their own flawed sample.
YG has nearly as many Guardian readers in it's polls as Sun readers. The Sun outsells the Guardian by 10:1
Gove's Privy Council problems will pass. I still maintain the question to be asked of that story is cui bono?
The party needs to come together after the referendum, whatever the result. But preferably before: argue the cases rationally and politely.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35800429
"Without the ability to send our weather across to Europe, thunder and hail will stay in Britain, and swarms of locusts will feed on the flattened crops.
If the UK leaves, the light will be gone from our lives and a thick darkness will envelop the land. It is highly likely that the firstborn of every family will die."
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/miscellaneous/the-bad-consequences-of-brexit/
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/yougov-economist-24084
Ohio does appear to be the exception with Kasich outpacing Trump's push, Trump will have to squeeze Cruz because it looks like Rubio has collapsed to Kasich's benefit.
But nothing to see here, move along now
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/
Ohio Primaries
GOP:
Trump 44%
Kasich 38
Cruz 12
Rubio 2
DEM'S:
Clinton 52%
Sanders 45
ARG 3/12-3/13
In any case, no-one has ever answered my obvious point: No 10 doesn't get to boss around the British Chambers of Commerce.
And those are the ratings at the moment. They might improve. I think I'm right in saying it's unusual for ratings to increase; but given Corbyn's dire start it might well be possible.
Or imagine another scenario: complacent Conservatives tear the party in two over the EU, thinking they are safe because Corbyn is unelectable. In the meantime Corbyn changes the Labour party in his vision, then steps down a year before the GE. His replacement is someone who is pretty much of Corbyn's mindset, but a much fresher slate.
The attacks on his replacement might well be less strident than they were against Corbyn: the Conservatives tearing themselves apart will provide better copy, and Labour leaders with odd views will not be so much of a story after Corbyn. And it would be hard for the replacement to be worse.
Also as Mr Meeks has noted, whilst Corbyn has been leader, the advance preparation of threads has become a nightmare.
Just prior to the Syria vote, between Thursday lunchtime and Saturday evening, I wrote four threads for the Sunday that had to be trashed simply because events/clusterfeck had moved on rapidly.
"Michael Gove should be given George Osborne's job in Number 11" David Herdson https://t.co/NP2cE1UAMu
Mr. Eagles, maybe Vlad's preparing for his next incursion. I wonder if he'd supply the Kurds with weapons to repay Turkey for the downed planes?
Edited extra bit: Mr. StClare, I agree, a more cordial atmosphere would be a good thing.
Every business secretary or their equivalent since the early 1990s has claimed they would cut red tape. All of them have done the opposite, or more accurately been in office as the opposite has happened.
And of course one reason for this is that they have had zero control over the deluge of regulation coming from abroad, ie. from the EU.
The post of business secretary, frankly, might as well be abolished.
First poll indicating what I would expect, easy win for Trump in California.
It's a big, big mistake to assume the Conservatives can in any way 'afford' a split.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is told by a man that she cannot do this, that or the other.
Try and put yourself in the shoes of someone like me who, when I first started as a lawyer, was told that one of the QC's in the chambers where I was training, refused to speak to women pupils "on principle". (The principle was never clearly elucidated other than his feeling that talking to educated and intelligent women was beneath him.)
Odd? Or outrageous?