Plenty of private switchers out there I'd bet, ones not contributing much to the campaign they nominally support. Inviting ridicule by being open about it I can respect, she's at least justifying an embarrassing u turn. Not very convincingly, if not as preposterously as it seemed at first glance, but she's had the balls to do it and her electors can judge if they accept that.
That's a fair point. For whatever reason, she's decided enough is enough, and very publicly switched sides. It's actually a very brave decision, given the current atmosphere.
On topic, Labour would do well to pick the best candidate based on the contents of his or her character. If they want a female leader, then they need to select and promote women with the skills needed for the post. Unless they excel on the front bench in their shadow role, there is no point promoting them higher just to tick a 'been there, done that' box.
Yes - I think members don't in general think in terms of gender or race when choosing - Khan wasn't selected because he was a Muslim but because he was mildly leftish and competent, over Jowell who was mildly rightish (in Labour terms) but competent. The example of Thatcher (who, whatever some here think, is not seen as a role model by Labour members) reminds members of the limits of a female=good meme.
Fox's analysis looks right to me. Creasy is IMO the most charismatic of the names mentioned and could win if she caught the party in pragmatic mood. Nandy could win on a "mildly left but little baggage" ticket, like Khan. I can't see anyone from the former top tier making it.
Creasey - yes, I can well see a good run there, but I'm sure I read somewhere that she's not popular with other Lab MPs, perhaps because she clearly is charismatic and can get attention even as a backbencher.
Nandy looks to me, on TV at least, as someone who has the fierce ambition required, but speaking personally she comes across as a little off-putting in a strange way.
Yvette isn't good enough, cannot command. There isn't a woman that I can think of in Labour who could lead.. and win..
For the Tories.. once Dave has gone, it'll have to be Hammond, or the Tories will be equally fecked.. What price the Lib Dems to come thro' the middle...
Only 15 days (is it) of this interminable referendum, that isn'r even binding.. its turning into a farce.. Is anyone but the diehards listening to the continual stream of lies.
This really is the most persuasive argument to vote Remain I have seen
@NadineDorriesMP: If the people #VoteLeave on June 23rd, we have clever men to renegotiate our terms with Europe. Raab Redwood Lilley Davis Cash Gove
Genius!
Rafeal Behr (Guardian): "Gove, Johnson, Farage and the rest are lighting a fire on the off-chance that a phoenix will rise from the ashes, while safe in the knowledge that it won’t be their livelihoods going up in smoke."
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!
Ive had no time for Woolaston since she claimed that reopening the Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton line would be a 'disaster' in 2014
Sod North Devon and North Cornwall, we want all the trains ourselves even if a dawlish diversion line instead round the sea wall would cost five times as much money as reopening via Okehampton and Tavistock.
There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Ive had no time for Woolaston since she claimed that reopening the Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton line would be a 'disaster' in 2014
Sod North Devon and North Cornwall, we want all the trains ourselves even if a dawlish diversion line instead round the sea wall would cost five times as much money as reopening via Okehampton and Tavistock.
On topic, Nandy might be a serious contender insofar as she is possibly electable by the far-left extremists who have taken over the party membership, but has the good sense and ambition to move sharply to the right once in office. I'd like to think Stella would be a candidate - she is excellent - but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!
You would then be burning Boris Johnson MA Oxon
You don't get it, do you?
You will find some leftwingers who like Boris and Nigel like Kate Hoey and some right-wing graduates who hate them like George Osborne
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
I don't understand how the campaign can have changed anyone's mind who was firm. The last significant thing that happened is the renegotiation.
ON TOPIC It's rather unfortunate that the Wollaston story has rather engulfed the subject of this morning's thread header, i.e. the prospect of Labour electing a woman as its next leader. HenryG is a brilliantly well-informed judge on such matters (as indeed he is of tennis matches) and I for one won't be missing out on his tip for Lisa Nandy, currently best priced at 9.5 (8.1/1 net) on the Betfair exchange.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
Unfortunately, it seems as if the Leave campaign does seem to have been UKIPed though. The recent tone adopted by key advocates allows Cameron to get away with that claim.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
I don't understand how the campaign can have changed anyone's mind who was firm. The last significant thing that happened is the renegotiation.
Actually the last significant thing that happened was Leave ruling out the EEA option.
On topic, Nandy might be a serious contender insofar as she is possibly electable by the far-left extremists who have taken over the party membership, but has the good sense and ambition to move sharply to the right once in office. I'd like to think Stella would be a candidate - she is excellent - but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them.
McDonnell pre 2020 and Umunna or Khan post 2020 is how I see it
Describing voters as little Englanders is idiotic. Remain are clearly trying to shore up their metro city and non-English vote. Such language is quite repellant to English Leave or Leave inclined voters.
There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!
You would then be burning Boris Johnson MA Oxon
You don't get it, do you?
You will find some leftwingers who like Boris and Nigel like Kate Hoey and some right-wing graduates who hate them like George Osborne
And plenty of people voting Leave despite hating Farage, and plenty voting Remain despite hating Cameron.
On topic, Nandy might be a serious contender insofar as she is possibly electable by the far-left extremists who have taken over the party membership, but has the good sense and ambition to move sharply to the right once in office. I'd like to think Stella would be a candidate - she is excellent - but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them.
"but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them."
They told her to F off and join the Tory party didn't they, as they surrounded her office with a baying mob. Or did the media make that up?
I would imagine Wollaston was a simple plant. A time bomb, a little like the former Tory Ukippers in the Euro elex who suddenly discovered they were in an apallingly racist party and saw the Tory light. It would be interesting to look at her voting record. Dirty politics, but quite effective, especially when you can count on the Broadcast media to put the right angle on it.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
I don't understand how the campaign can have changed anyone's mind who was firm. The last significant thing that happened is the renegotiation.
Actually the last significant thing that happened was Leave ruling out the EEA option.
That wasn't significant because they have no say what happens after June 23rd.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
The funny thing about the "Little Englander" jibe is that it originally applied to the Cobden/Bright wing of the Liberal Party, who thought Britain should just mind its own business, and not get involved in costly wars. In that sense, it's a fitting description of what the Leave campaign is about.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
Unfortunately, it seems as if the Leave campaign does seem to have been UKIPed though. The recent tone adopted by key advocates allows Cameron to get away with that claim.
It was only launched following the Farage v Cameron ITV Q&A, which is precisely why Vote Leave were so angry about it.
Expect to see a much more positive hopeful case tonight, like Gove last Friday.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
I don't understand how the campaign can have changed anyone's mind who was firm. The last significant thing that happened is the renegotiation.
Actually the last significant thing that happened was Leave ruling out the EEA option.
Not quite true. The decision Leave took at the beginning of the month to campaign exclusively and aggressively on immigration was the last significant thing.
Leavers seem to be irked by being tarred with Nigel Farage and being labelled as Little Englanders, but Leave is campaigning on Nigel Farage's terms.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
I don't understand how the campaign can have changed anyone's mind who was firm. The last significant thing that happened is the renegotiation.
Actually the last significant thing that happened was Leave ruling out the EEA option.
Not quite true. The decision Leave took at the beginning of the month to campaign exclusively and aggressively on immigration was the last significant thing.
Leavers seem to be irked by being tarred with Nigel Farage and being labelled as Little Englanders, but Leave is campaigning on Nigel Farage's terms.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
Picking a competent inspiring leader isn't difficult, as long as buggins turn is applied. Lisa Nandy is granddaughter of a Liberal MP, she seems to be shy about detailing her schooling.
As for Wollaston, the Damascene conversion is at odds with some of her Twitter feeds on the EU. Should she be offered office, one might ask why she surrendered her soul for an under-secretaryship.. .
A Man for All Seasons - Sir Thomas More : "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?" Reworking Matthew 8:36.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
I can understand that, but who are they trying to sway? I know it's not meant to come over that way, but it pisses off an awful lot of patriotic, English working class. Maybe Cameron doesn't need them for the EU referendum, but the Tory party needs them afterwards. Bloke's a tosser:-)
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
No, by anyone in the Tory Party.
I have a feeling that your reaction might be different if, say, Sajid Javid had defected to Leave.
On topic, Nandy might be a serious contender insofar as she is possibly electable by the far-left extremists who have taken over the party membership, but has the good sense and ambition to move sharply to the right once in office. I'd like to think Stella would be a candidate - she is excellent - but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them.
"but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them."
They told her to F off and join the Tory party didn't they, as they surrounded her office with a baying mob. Or did the media make that up?
The media made it up. According to Stella (I was on her Deputy campaign team) there was a small left-wing group who turned up one evening to present a petition to her. They found the office closed and deserted, so they went away and didn't come back when it reopened. The media version was that they surrounded her home as a baying mob, or alternatively that they surrounded her office and terrified her staff. Both versions are bollocks.
But it's undoubtedly true that she's a non-Corbynist, though she's not been high profile about it. Her strategy has I think been simply to get on with the job of pursuing her consumer/anti-loanshark campaigns.
O/T. There are a myriad of paths in the probability tree that lead to the selection of a future Labour leader and it is frankly very difficult to know where to begin. The most immediate question is whether Corbyn's allies succeed in the rule changes they are seeking to (a) ensure that the leader is guaranteed a place on the ballot rather than having to gain nominations of 15% of MPs and (b) reduce the threshold for challengers to 5%.
If yes, then it is possible that if and when Labour are well behind in the polls in say 2018, and Corbyn realises he can't win, Corbyn's allies might persuade him to stand down in the knowledge that an alternative candidate of the left would get the 5% and make the ballot. McDonnell would then I think be the left candidate and the strong favourite, and as he is generally seen as a sharper and more capable operator and the membership base that voted in Corbyn would still be there to support him.
Discount that scenario, and I think it is still far from odds on that Corbyn will go voluntarily, then we are left with Corbyn almost certainly fighting off the inevitable leadership challenge and going on to lose in 2020. So we need to consider this in terms of the mood of the Labour Party amidst the recriminations of what seems likely to be a bad election defeat in 2020, with a party desperate to find someone electable such that candidates from other wings of the party would stand a better chance, and that would include a female candidate.
Wollaston changing sides is a farce. She seems to be saying she didn't make an informed decision on the facts at the start. For a member of the public that's fine, for an mp it's utterly unforgivable.
No, she's switched because she says LEAVE are telling lies about the NHS:
Dr Wollaston, chairman of the health select committee, said Vote Leave's claim that Brexit would free up £350m a week for the NHS "simply isn't true"......"For someone like me who has long campaigned for open and honest data in public life I could not have set foot on a battle bus that has at the heart of its campaign a figure that I know to be untrue."
The only reason to change position at this stage for an mp is if new material facts have come to light which would have influenced her original decision. They haven't,
They have.
Vote Leave have persisted with their mendacious £350 million a week and are now suggesting it could all go on the NHS.
To campaign under that is to campaign under a false prospectus.....
But we do give £350million a week to the EU
No we don't:
Prof Ian Begg of the LSE notes, the rebate is deducted before any payment is made, so it is incorrect to say Britain “sends the EU £350m a week” – the Treasury actually remits just over £100m a week less.
Deduct both the rebate (£4.9bn), which is never actually paid, and the money that is paid but sent back from the gross £17.8bn annual “membership fee” (£5.8bn), and you arrive at a net figure of £7.1bn. This equates to £136m a week, less than 40% of the amount splashed on the Vote Leave battlebus.
LEAVE Liars.....
Quoting a liar to attack the other side is hardly going to help your case. The gross is not £17.8 billion it is £19.5 billion. You certainly don't count the money that is sent back as that is sent back under EU control and with demands for matched funding before it is paid. He even gets the net amount wrong - it was £8.5 billion last year not £7.1 billion.
The actual amount he should be using as the base figure is £15 billion a year or £288 million a week.
Mind you Begg is an fanatical Federalist and supporter of the EU and has history for dodgy facts from the days of the Single Currency campaign.
This is from Marcus who works for YouGov now. He's looked at the polling
Politically, the undecideds are more likely to vote Conservative and dislike Nigel Farage. This is largely because the people who like Farage most are pro-Brexiters and the one thing they are not is undecided. Those who are either in favour of remaining in the EU or are still making up their minds tend to actively dislike the Ukip leader, meaning he is more likely to turn off swing voters than bring them into the Leave camp.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
No, by anyone in the Tory Party.
I have a feeling that your reaction might be different if, say, Sajid Javid had defected to Leave.
To be honest, any politician defecting at this stage looks stupid.
This is from Marcus who works for YouGov now. He's looked at the polling
Politically, the undecideds are more likely to vote Conservative and dislike Nigel Farage. This is largely because the people who like Farage most are pro-Brexiters and the one thing they are not is undecided. Those who are either in favour of remaining in the EU or are still making up their minds tend to actively dislike the Ukip leader, meaning he is more likely to turn off swing voters than bring them into the Leave camp.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
I can understand that, but who are they trying to sway? I know it's not meant to come over that way, but it pisses off an awful lot of patriotic, English working class. Maybe Cameron doesn't need them for the EU referendum, but the Tory party needs them afterwards. Bloke's a tosser:-)
This is going down to the wire. They accept they can't win over Provincial England, so they must maximise turnout elsewhere.
I would imagine Wollaston was a simple plant. A time bomb, a little like the former Tory Ukippers in the Euro elex who suddenly discovered they were in an apallingly racist party and saw the Tory light. It would be interesting to look at her voting record. Dirty politics, but quite effective, especially when you can count on the Broadcast media to put the right angle on it.
The naked europhilia of the London media is indeed going to be a major challenge for Leave in the final days. But the plant theory is hard to wear. Seems too far fetched.
This is from Marcus who works for YouGov now. He's looked at the polling
Politically, the undecideds are more likely to vote Conservative and dislike Nigel Farage. This is largely because the people who like Farage most are pro-Brexiters and the one thing they are not is undecided. Those who are either in favour of remaining in the EU or are still making up their minds tend to actively dislike the Ukip leader, meaning he is more likely to turn off swing voters than bring them into the Leave camp.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.
Just reading the Times - apparently Hague has urged voters to look beyond their "parochial concerns".
Nice one Billy; how about you worry about your concerns and stop insisting that everyone else's are parochial just because they haven't worked at the Foreign Office.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.
Surely you want to trust what your MP says... But yes, her long term political career is finished if someone else has control over it..
The only public item I can remember about Wollaston, when she was with Leave, was her disquiet about the £350million. This seems a strange point to fixate on, given the nonsense on both sides.
In hindsight, she seems to have been preparing this supposed 'switch' for some time. I don't find her reasons credible.
I read the Times piece she did.
It does make her look terribly insincere but that's par for the course in this referendum in which Farage, love him or loathe him, remarkably seems to be the only politician expressing a sincerely held view.
Best just to settle on "We send billions to the EU" which no one is disputing.
Furthermore, this is a debate about our membership of the EU. Is she really saying she recommends we leave if one campaign uses a net figure, but because they used the gross we should stay in?
Perhaps she realised that a campaign that plays so fast and loose with the facts and makes such a misrepresentation as it affects an area where she is an expert, might play fast and loose with other elements and facts.
And perhaps she realised also that these are the people that would be leading an independent UK into its glorious future.
And thought: nah.
Or perhaps it was easier to go with your visceral dislike of the EU and all its works when exit seemed a Quixotic dream. But when they got to start leading in polls....that concentrated the mind.
It is a bit weird. Dr Sarah is my MP and I have met her on a number of occasions. Her initial decision was a surprise (especially as MP for Totnes, twinned with Narnia...). I can't believe the tin-foil notion that she was a Remain plant into Leave. I just don't see her as somebody who would go along with that tricksy stuff. But as a constituent her volte face is impossible to comprehend when read alongside the comments she has been making right up to a few days ago. I could understand it if there was something that had materially changed. But all of her comments about the EU stack up today as they did yesterday.
Must be the curse of pb.com. Just as we were saying she was the only MP who had come out of the Referendum with her reputation enhanced, she goes and descends into the general morass of political what-the-fuckery that has been the hallmark of this campaign.....
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.
Her Totnes constituency has quite a small population:
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
I don't understand how the campaign can have changed anyone's mind who was firm. The last significant thing that happened is the renegotiation.
Actually the last significant thing that happened was Leave ruling out the EEA option.
That wasn't significant because they have no say what happens after June 23rd.
If Leave wins, the views of individual prominent Leavers - particularly within the Conservatives - will be significant. To the extent that Leave as a campaign has a view, it's not - which is why all the calls for 'tell us what you'd do afterwards' were always a bit silly, if potentially effective as a campaigning technique. (The comparison with the SIndyRef doesn't hold because there it was the government itself, comprised of a single party, which overwhelmingly led the Yes campaign in favour of the 'change' option).
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laurf only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
Yes, it's quite a good line.
Good line of the morning is:
"If you meet a migrant in the NHS they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue." Dr S Wollaston
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.
Her Totnes constituency has quite a small population:
Any move to expand the Totnes constituency in any direction is only going to drag in a huge proportion of extra Tory voters. That said, she has made the seat her own, based on being her own woman. She doesn't really sit on the Green benches as a Tory, but as an MP for the Awkward Squad. If she stood as an Independent, she would still have a five-figure majority is my take.
If Leave wins, everything is up in the air. The EU is in danger of splitting up. Things will change massively. But if Remain wins, things will also change massively. There is no status quo.
In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.
The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.
But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.
As regards, Dr Wollaston ... a dignified and principled step down from Leave is reasonable, but I'm surprised she's gone directly to Remain. It doesn't have to be a binary choice. It does smack of politics too.
If Leave wins, everything is up in the air. The EU is in danger of splitting up. Things will change massively. But if Remain wins, things will also change massively. There is no status quo.
In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.
The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.
But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.
As regards, Dr Wollaston ... a dignified and principled step down from Leave is reasonable, but I'm surprised she's gone directly to Remain. It doesn't have to be a binary choice. It does smack of politics too.
UKIP will get a big boost if Remain win narrowly preventing the next government having a majority
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
No, by anyone in the Tory Party.
I have a feeling that your reaction might be different if, say, Sajid Javid had defected to Leave.
No thanks. Having Javid switch to Leave would impact on the chances of Aberavon voting Leave.
The Labour Party has been captured by the hard left. If they ever do choose a woman leader it's going to Diane Abbot or some such horror story.
It's more complicated than that (apart from the fact that I don't agree with your description). Diane came a long way behind Khan and Jowell in the London selection, which was made by just the same London membership that voted massively for Corbyn. The membership is predominantly left-wing, but also likes winning. Where the non-leftie candidates are not putting a coherent case (and I don't think many people seriously argue that Corbyn's rivals did), they opt for the leftie. Where the non-leftie puts a case together then it gets serious consideration.
Leaving Iraq aside, lots of members including me supported Blair while he was doing what we felt was good stuff - refinancing health, doing the Northern Ireland deal, introducing the minimum wage, improving social legislation, etc. It wasn't that we had suddenly turned into semi-Tories, but we felt there was a useful agenda here which was worth pursuing for the moment. Khan was selected on much the same basis, and there are plenty of left-wing members who will go for that kind of option when it's on offer. What we won't do is settle for vague slogans adding up to nothing in particular.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
No, by anyone in the Tory Party.
I have a feeling that your reaction might be different if, say, Sajid Javid had defected to Leave.
Yes, it would be because he's always been a Leaver (and leaked private correspondence shows this) but Osborne got to him, and I think he hates himself for it.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.
Her Totnes constituency has quite a small population:
Any move to expand the Totnes constituency in any direction is only going to drag in a huge proportion of extra Tory voters. That said, she has made the seat her own, based on being her own woman. She doesn't really sit on the Green benches as a Tory, but as an MP for the Awkward Squad. If she stood as an Independent, she would still have a five-figure majority is my take.
But is there not a possibility that there might be one MP less? I suspect she'd be okay - especially if Remain win - but there's some fun and games on the horizon if the reduction in MPs happens.
If Leave wins, everything is up in the air. The EU is in danger of splitting up. Things will change massively. But if Remain wins, things will also change massively. There is no status quo.
In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.
The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.
But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.
Quite.
Which is why the government, if it gets a Remain vote, has to be honest for the first time and openly say: this is where the EU is going. And then negotiate terms to join the euro and Schengen - and put them to the people for ratification.
@Casino_Royale So you'll trust defectors in your direction but never trust defectors in the other direction, and you speak with confidence for the entire Conservative party.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laurf only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
Yes, it's quite a good line.
Good line of the morning is:
"If you meet a migrant in the NHS they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue." Dr S Wollaston
All Boris has to do tonight in the debates, if Wollaston is brought up, is say "I agree with Sarah", and then quote any number of tweets or articles she was writing up to as recently as four days ago.
Furthermore, this is a debate about our membership of the EU. Is she really saying she recommends we leave if one campaign uses a net figure, but because they used the gross we should stay in?
Perhaps she realised that a campaign that plays so fast and loose with the facts and makes such a misrepresentation as it affects an area where she is an expert, might play fast and loose with other elements and facts.
And perhaps she realised also that these are the people that would be leading an independent UK into its glorious future.
And thought: nah.
Or perhaps it was easier to go with your visceral dislike of the EU and all its works when exit seemed a Quixotic dream. But when they got to start leading in polls....that concentrated the mind.
It is a bit weird. Dr Sarah is my MP and I have met her on a number of occasions. Her initial decision was a surprise (especially as MP for Totnes, twinned with Narnia...). I can't believe the tin-foil notion that she was a Remain plant into Leave. I just don't see her as somebody who would go along with that tricksy stuff. But as a constituent her volte face is impossible to comprehend when read alongside the comments she has been making right up to a few days ago. I could understand it if there was something that had materially changed. But all of her comments about the EU stack up today as they did yesterday.
Must be the curse of pb.com. Just as we were saying she was the only MP who had come out of the Referendum with her reputation enhanced, she goes and descends into the general morass of political what-the-fuckery that has been the hallmark of this campaign.....
Yep, odd from her. I certainly doubt she would involve herself in the dark arts and she has always been strongly independently minded.
But fair enough, if this is how she now feels then at least she's been honest enough to say it.
Just reading the Times - apparently Hague has urged voters to look beyond their "parochial concerns".
Nice one Billy; how about you worry about your concerns and stop insisting that everyone else's are parochial just because they haven't worked at the Foreign Office.
Parochial is such a fabulously patronising term. The longer this campaign goes on, the more true colours are exposed.
It's certainly not going to be business-as-usual after 24th. I got my membership renewal papers yesterday. If Remain wins, I'm leaving.
What a horrific picture. The UK very narrowly voting to Remain but England voting to Leave.
Good luck to anybody trying to govern in that outcome. Constitutional horror show.
It will give supercharged rocket boosters to the federal UK agenda. EVFEL and all that. One way or another England is rising and the Brexit debate only shines more light on it. Personally I'd like to see a full English Parliament separate from the UK parliament (but could physically use the HoC as a debating chamber).
If Leave wins, everything is up in the air. The EU is in danger of splitting up. Things will change massively. But if Remain wins, things will also change massively. There is no status quo.
In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.
The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.
But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.
Quite.
Which is why the government, if it gets a Remain vote, has to be honest for the first time and openly say: this is where the EU is going. And then negotiate terms to join the euro and Schengen - and put them to the people for ratification.
Any western EU government voting to approve Turkey's membership will be slaughtered at the polls. The French will require a referendum.
If we vote for Remain it will not be for our further integration. That is the opposite of what Cameron laid out in his negotiation. We don't want any more politicians or political activists reading more into it than is justified.
Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
No. She will never be trusted again.
By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.
If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.
Her Totnes constituency has quite a small population:
Any move to expand the Totnes constituency in any direction is only going to drag in a huge proportion of extra Tory voters. That said, she has made the seat her own, based on being her own woman. She doesn't really sit on the Green benches as a Tory, but as an MP for the Awkward Squad. If she stood as an Independent, she would still have a five-figure majority is my take.
But is there not a possibility that there might be one MP less? I suspect she'd be okay - especially if Remain win - but there's some fun and games on the horizon if the reduction in MPs happens.
There are currently 11 MPs in Devon and 6 in Cornwall. In the new review a combined Devonwall will get 16 seats. As the only non-Tory seat (Exeter) won't change much in the review, that means a Tory has to lose out. You would expect at least one Tory MP to choose to retire, but if not there will be a blue on blue bunfight somewhere.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laurf only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
Yes, it's quite a good line.
Good line of the morning is:
"If you meet a migrant in the NHS they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue." Dr S Wollaston
If Leave wins, everything is up in the air. The EU is in danger of splitting up. Things will change massively. But if Remain wins, things will also change massively. There is no status quo.
In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.
The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.
But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.
Quite.
Which is why the government, if it gets a Remain vote, has to be honest for the first time and openly say: this is where the EU is going. And then negotiate terms to join the euro and Schengen - and put them to the people for ratification.
Any western EU government voting to approve Turkey's membership will be slaughtered at the polls. The French will require a referendum.
If we vote for Remain it will not be for our further integration. That is the opposite of what Cameron laid out in his negotiation. We don't want any more politicians or political activists reading more into it than is justified.
His negotiation is meaningless and toothless. What it says is neither here nor there. Further integration is what you are signing up to if we vote Remain. There is nothing else on offer.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.
I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
I can understand that, but who are they trying to sway? I know it's not meant to come over that way, but it pisses off an awful lot of patriotic, English working class. Maybe Cameron doesn't need them for the EU referendum, but the Tory party needs them afterwards. Bloke's a tosser:-)
This is going down to the wire. They accept they can't win over Provincial England, so they must maximise turnout elsewhere.
It's very well focus grouped for London, met cities and Scotland.
If Leave wins, everything is up in the air. The EU is in danger of splitting up. Things will change massively. But if Remain wins, things will also change massively. There is no status quo.
In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.
The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.
But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.
As regards, Dr Wollaston ... a dignified and principled step down from Leave is reasonable, but I'm surprised she's gone directly to Remain. It doesn't have to be a binary choice. It does smack of politics too.
UKIP will get a big boost if Remain win narrowly preventing the next government having a majority
There will certainly be a massive gap for a euro-sceptic and genuine EU reform party to move into.
This referendum has killed the Tory brand on that.
A Tory promise on the EU and Migration is as valuable as a Lib Dem one on tuition fees.
Did Mr "Parochial" Hague ever believe any of that "save the pound" and "I'll give you back your country" stuff from 97-01? Seems to me it was all an act because he'd got nothing else to say (because John Major had destroyed the Tories in 1992 when he presided over the house repossession meltdown across Middle England)
I can cope with people like Clarke and Heseltine who have never tried to hide their true beliefs. The real villains are people like Hague and Cameron who have spent decades pretending to be one thing and it turns out it was all a lie...
Mr. Root, I agree. Politics is in a fragmented state right now. This could be a great opportunity for Farage, particularly if Remain wins (if Leave does, the Conservatives will be more likely to reunite, whereas if Remain wins, bitter division will, er, remain).
Also, Lake Manor's a bestseller in three categories. Huzzah!
This is why I don't think the "vote Leave to eff the tories/Cameron" line will work in the end on potential Labour leavers. A remain vote will do more long term damage to the tories than a leave one would. That's the line labour remainers should be taking.
Comments
I don't need to remind PBers of the reason why the country will never elect Yvette Cooper as PM?
Nandy looks to me, on TV at least, as someone who has the fierce ambition required, but speaking personally she comes across as a little off-putting in a strange way.
That should be a Leave red line - if we leave then we forbid the EU from using our language.
Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.
Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.
http://www.markpack.org.uk/140970/tessa-munt-election-expenses/
No such luck for the Tories:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/did-the-conservatives-steal-the-election-by-failing-to-declare-local-campaign-spending-a7065341.html
More seriously Penny Mordaunt has been very quiet lately.
That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.
Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.
Sod North Devon and North Cornwall, we want all the trains ourselves even if a dawlish diversion line instead round the sea wall would cost five times as much money as reopening via Okehampton and Tavistock.
Narrow minded parochialism in my opinion
http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/MP-warns-Plymouth-rail-link-reopening-disaster/story-21042265-detail/story.html
Noted.
It's rather unfortunate that the Wollaston story has rather engulfed the subject of this morning's thread header, i.e. the prospect of Labour electing a woman as its next leader.
HenryG is a brilliantly well-informed judge on such matters (as indeed he is of tennis matches) and I for one won't be missing out on his tip for Lisa Nandy, currently best priced at 9.5 (8.1/1 net) on the Betfair exchange.
They told her to F off and join the Tory party didn't they, as they surrounded her office with a baying mob. Or did the media make that up?
It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.
Expect to see a much more positive hopeful case tonight, like Gove last Friday.
Leavers seem to be irked by being tarred with Nigel Farage and being labelled as Little Englanders, but Leave is campaigning on Nigel Farage's terms.
As for Wollaston, the Damascene conversion is at odds with some of her Twitter feeds on the EU. Should she be offered office, one might ask why she surrendered her soul for an under-secretaryship.. .
A Man for All Seasons - Sir Thomas More : "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?" Reworking Matthew 8:36.
But it's undoubtedly true that she's a non-Corbynist, though she's not been high profile about it. Her strategy has I think been simply to get on with the job of pursuing her consumer/anti-loanshark campaigns.
If yes, then it is possible that if and when Labour are well behind in the polls in say 2018, and Corbyn realises he can't win, Corbyn's allies might persuade him to stand down in the knowledge that an alternative candidate of the left would get the 5% and make the ballot. McDonnell would then I think be the left candidate and the strong favourite, and as he is generally seen as a sharper and more capable operator and the membership base that voted in Corbyn would still be there to support him.
Discount that scenario, and I think it is still far from odds on that Corbyn will go voluntarily, then we are left with Corbyn almost certainly fighting off the inevitable leadership challenge and going on to lose in 2020. So we need to consider this in terms of the mood of the Labour Party amidst the recriminations of what seems likely to be a bad election defeat in 2020, with a party desperate to find someone electable such that candidates from other wings of the party would stand a better chance, and that would include a female candidate.
The actual amount he should be using as the base figure is £15 billion a year or £288 million a week.
Mind you Begg is an fanatical Federalist and supporter of the EU and has history for dodgy facts from the days of the Single Currency campaign.
This is from Marcus who works for YouGov now. He's looked at the polling
Politically, the undecideds are more likely to vote Conservative and dislike Nigel Farage. This is largely because the people who like Farage most are pro-Brexiters and the one thing they are not is undecided. Those who are either in favour of remaining in the EU or are still making up their minds tend to actively dislike the Ukip leader, meaning he is more likely to turn off swing voters than bring them into the Leave camp.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/how-important-are-tv-debates-deciding-eu-referendum
Indeed a particularly nutty mob of Momentumites did indeed do the pitchfork thing in E17, if memory serves.
Nice one Billy; how about you worry about your concerns and stop insisting that everyone else's are parochial just because they haven't worked at the Foreign Office.
It does make her look terribly insincere but that's par for the course in this referendum in which Farage, love him or loathe him, remarkably seems to be the only politician expressing a sincerely held view.
Best just to settle on "We send billions to the EU" which no one is disputing.
It is a bit weird. Dr Sarah is my MP and I have met her on a number of occasions. Her initial decision was a surprise (especially as MP for Totnes, twinned with Narnia...). I can't believe the tin-foil notion that she was a Remain plant into Leave. I just don't see her as somebody who would go along with that tricksy stuff. But as a constituent her volte face is impossible to comprehend when read alongside the comments she has been making right up to a few days ago. I could understand it if there was something that had materially changed. But all of her comments about the EU stack up today as they did yesterday.
Must be the curse of pb.com. Just as we were saying she was the only MP who had come out of the Referendum with her reputation enhanced, she goes and descends into the general morass of political what-the-fuckery that has been the hallmark of this campaign.....
http://tinyurl.com/jd2gsun
What a horrific picture. Leave winning despite every major city and commercial centre voting Remain.
"If you meet a migrant in the NHS they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue."
Dr S Wollaston
In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.
The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.
But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.
As regards, Dr Wollaston ... a dignified and principled step down from Leave is reasonable, but I'm surprised she's gone directly to Remain. It doesn't have to be a binary choice. It does smack of politics too.
Leaving Iraq aside, lots of members including me supported Blair while he was doing what we felt was good stuff - refinancing health, doing the Northern Ireland deal, introducing the minimum wage, improving social legislation, etc. It wasn't that we had suddenly turned into semi-Tories, but we felt there was a useful agenda here which was worth pursuing for the moment. Khan was selected on much the same basis, and there are plenty of left-wing members who will go for that kind of option when it's on offer. What we won't do is settle for vague slogans adding up to nothing in particular.
I was always nervous about Sarah Wollaston.
Which is why the government, if it gets a Remain vote, has to be honest for the first time and openly say: this is where the EU is going. And then negotiate terms to join the euro and Schengen - and put them to the people for ratification.
But fair enough, if this is how she now feels then at least she's been honest enough to say it.
It's certainly not going to be business-as-usual after 24th. I got my membership renewal papers yesterday. If Remain wins, I'm leaving.
But why didn't @sarahwollaston stay and try to change #VoteLeave from within... ?
If we vote for Remain it will not be for our further integration. That is the opposite of what Cameron laid out in his negotiation. We don't want any more politicians or political activists reading more into it than is justified.
"If we vote for Remain it will not be for our further integration."
1975.
Which is telling in itself.
This referendum has killed the Tory brand on that.
A Tory promise on the EU and Migration is as valuable as a Lib Dem one on tuition fees.
I can cope with people like Clarke and Heseltine who have never tried to hide their true beliefs. The real villains are people like Hague and Cameron who have spent decades pretending to be one thing and it turns out it was all a lie...