I can't see any Labour leader being able to defeat May in a general election. She's like Thatcher II.
It will be difficult imo, Labour certainly have their work cut out, I believe the hope is to elect a new leader who will not be as electorally bad as Corbyn.
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
? Leadsom is neither. And she's still in the race.
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
Is Gove actually standing? Not a chance surely.
I find this feeling about Gove quite puzzling. He is no saint. He is a back-stabber and vicious at that. I know politicians are seen as unprincipled people.
The way Gove has behaved, I have not seen in 40 years. And, let us not hear how principled he is.
He and his wife has only one ambition. For him to become PM.
Another reason I am also very relieved about this exit vote is because a vote for union with the EU would have led, over the next century, to exactly the same problems that the act of Union with Ireland did in 1801, and to the British people deciding on exactly the same solution to end it that the Irish people did, at some point in the next century.
Had Irish MPs and Lords not been successfully threatened and bribed into voting their own parliament out of existence, it would have remained and stood side by side with Australias, Canadas etc. as they formed and Ireland would undoubtably have become a key Dominion, and would now be, like Australia and Canada a member of the Commonwealth with HM Queen as constitutional head of state and little if any of the blood that was spilled after 1801, and alas is still being spilled (although thankfully at a far slower rate than even 20 years ago), would have been spilled.
We have had a very very lucky escape, because the British electorate, unlike the Irish Parliamentarians, said NO.
What part of a *federal* Europe don't you understand?
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
Is Gove actually standing? Not a chance surely.
I find this feeling about Gove quite puzzling. He is no saint. He is a back-stabber and vicious at that. I know politicians are seen as unprincipled people.
The way Gove has behaved, I have not seen in 40 years. And, let us not hear how principled he is.
He and his wife has only one ambition. For him to become PM.
I hope he does succeed.
No, they both know he wont become PM. He has said as much, countless times. He'll either drop out or, if it looks as if he will do creditably, let his candidature run until May wins.
We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
That's a choice? I wonder whether there will even be a ballot of the membership.
It's a bit nasty to criticise someone for wearing glasses. I did mention May's type 1 diabetis, but only because I wondered whether her opponents might use it and because symptoms can get exacerbated under stress, and there's likely to be far more stress as PM than there has been as Home Secretary.
Gove likely to find he has just crowned May who will be less Brexit than Boris would have been.
May said only that there was a need for "more Immigration control" not the same system for EU and Non -EU immigrants.
Also May likely to appoint Hammond as Chancellor or Foreign Sec and maybe even keep Osborne in a top job.
Could have PM, Chancellor and Foreign Sec as Remainers.
We have to look after the 48%. It's that simple. Leavers had diverse motives that are likely to be hard to pin down. Remain is simple; they wanted to cling to nurse (whether that's due to inertia, fear or affection doesn't really matter).
do you think a nurse's uniform would help Ms May's chances?
Might help Crabb more and mitigate his gay "cure" views.
Gove likely to find he has just crowned May who will be less Brexit than Boris would have been.
May said only that there was a need for "more Immigration control" not the same system for EU and Non -EU immigrants.
Also May likely to appoint Hammond as Chancellor or Foreign Sec and maybe even keep Osborne in a top job.
Could have PM, Chancellor and Foreign Sec as Remainers.
We have to look after the 48%. It's that simple. Leavers had diverse motives that are likely to be hard to pin down. Remain is simple; they wanted to cling to nurse (whether that's due to inertia, fear or affection doesn't really matter).
do you think a nurse's uniform would help Ms May's chances?
Might help Crabb more and mitigate his gay "cure" views.
Oh, is he one of those types? Well, that rules him out as the unknown sensible choice.
Gove likely to find he has just crowned May who will be less Brexit than Boris would have been.
May said only that there was a need for "more Immigration control" not the same system for EU and Non -EU immigrants.
Also May likely to appoint Hammond as Chancellor or Foreign Sec and maybe even keep Osborne in a top job.
Could have PM, Chancellor and Foreign Sec as Remainers.
We have to look after the 48%. It's that simple. Leavers had diverse motives that are likely to be hard to pin down. Remain is simple; they wanted to cling to nurse (whether that's due to inertia, fear or affection doesn't really matter).
do you think a nurse's uniform would help Ms May's chances?
Might help Crabb more and mitigate his gay "cure" views.
Whoever compared her to Servalan from Blake's Seven was close to the mark. She had some superb outfits.
I tuned out of politics after Boris, what has Jezza done today (shudders)?
He's attacked anti-semitism, saying that being Jewish doesn't mean you are responsible for Netanyahu any more than being Muslim means that you're responsible for Islamic groups. Judge for yourself: the key extract is in the blog here, with Chakrabarti's comments.
It's been (falsely) claimed that he compared Israel to ISIS, and I suspect that some of the reactions are based on that.
There's a separate issue that an MP in the audience says she was insulted by someone else in the audience and Corbyn didn't intervene - I don't know the details of that.
I think there are many whose position is that Israel can do no wrong. In fact, any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. I cannot understand what the fuss is if , as reported, he said what he said.
"Jewish reporters who were there are very clear about what they heard. "
So, how come non-Jewish reporters did not hear that ? That is the implication of the above sentence.
So your evidence and reasoning that there's no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is that it's all a Jewish conspiracy to pretend there is?
Where did I say that ? I am sure there is. But I could not find anything objectionable in the words attributed to Corbyn today. He said, as I read it, just like all Muslims cannot be blamed for the actions of IS, similarly all Jewish people cannot be blamed for the actions of Israel.
I think the moment the word "Israel" is mentioned, people get to battle stations. He did not compare IS and Israel.
I think there is deep seated guilt in Europe regarding the Jewish people that millions were killed while the rest did nothing.
As I have said before, Palestinians did not kill 6 million Jews. Europeans did. Palestinians are only suffering because Jews emigrating from Europe kicked them out of their homes.
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
Is Gove actually standing? Not a chance surely.
He is - while simultaneously shafting Boris in every orifice known to man!
Great works are going to be produced in future generations about the events of the last week. It has been utterly compelling drama with the most extraordinary twists.
Should 172 MPs be able to subvert the will of the 500,000 party members
Yes or No
No
Yes. We elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf, not to commit us to a course of action from what might have been years ago, when the situation may have changed dramatically, particualrly when the win of those members cannot be assumed to be the same now as it was then (though it could be so).
Those 172 MPs are in parliament to serve their constituents.
Yes they are - and it is their responsibility to decide how best to serve their constituents, and if their constituents don't like how they do it they can vote them out. There is no way for them to reliably know what would be most popular with the majority of their constituents, and even if they did, that might not be what was best for them.
My Lab MP genuinely thought Kendall would win leadership election in 2015. His excitable tweets as her odds fell in the early days were laughable. Mind you he was running her campaign.
Same last week with EU
I have come to the conclusion maybe his judgement isnt very good
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
Is Gove actually standing? Not a chance surely.
He is - while simultaneously shafting Boris in every orifice known to man!
Just heard Hezza's take on it all. Don't think he got the memo about restoring party unity.
I wonder if Boris will even continue in politics. He looks a bit broken, today.
I was just thinking that it's the kind of attack from which he can never recover. If he tries to run again even in 15 years' time Heseltine's verdict on him is sure to be quoted.
I can't see any Labour leader being able to defeat May in a general election. She's like Thatcher II.
I really don't see her like that at all. I'm baffled she polls so well.
.............Straight to WTO, which apparently is what Gove wants, is a route to further catastrophe
That was not the conclusion of the HoC committee headed by Crispin Blunt. Why do you think that tariffs of 5% to 10% on manufactured goods would be so disastrous? Have they been terrible for America and China?
Might help Crabb more and mitigate his gay "cure" views.
Oh, is he one of those types? Well, that rules him out as the unknown sensible choice.
Apparently the Crabb gay cure involved banning homosexuals from owning pink scatter cushions and compulsory viewing of Dale Winton's "Supermarket Sweep".
Although following the down thread shocker that Winton bats for the other side I'd venture to suggest that Crabb need better researchers than the leading lights of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Straight to WTO, which apparently is what Gove wants, is a route to further catastrophe
Do you think Gove has done this because he is genuinely in it to win it as the only politician who can deliver the full, 100% Brexit package?
That's increasingly how I'm seeing it? He really is gonna go for this?
I dunno. But I gasped when he said we should Leave the single market during the campaign. It's clearly stupid.
Maybe leave it eventually, after 10-20 years in the EEA. Doing it all at once would kill us.
It's like we've been scuba diving in the EU for 50 years, getting into ever deeper, darker water. Every diver knows that when you want to come up for air, from the depths, you do it in stages, or you die.
Gove's plan would give us the Bends.
Totally disagree. It's all a matter of perception. I'd have argued for a five year moratorium on all new legally binding international agreements to follow Brexit.
I tuned out of politics after Boris, what has Jezza done today (shudders)?
He's attacked anti-semitism, saying that being Jewish doesn't mean you are responsible for Netanyahu any more than being Muslim means that you're responsible for Islamic groups. Judge for yourself: the key extract is in the blog here, with Chakrabarti's comments.
It's been (falsely) claimed that he compared Israel to ISIS, and I suspect that some of the reactions are based on that.
There's a separate issue that an MP in the audience says she was insulted by someone else in the audience and Corbyn didn't intervene - I don't know the details of that.
I think there are many whose position is that Israel can do no wrong. In fact, any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. I cannot understand what the fuss is if , as reported, he said what he said.
"Jewish reporters who were there are very clear about what they heard. "
So, how come non-Jewish reporters did not hear that ? That is the implication of the above sentence.
So your evidence and reasoning that there's no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is that it's all a Jewish conspiracy to pretend there is?
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
? Leadsom is neither. And she's still in the race.
Evening Standard: 'If she doesn't support Corbyn I'll kick the f*** out of you': London MP's aide 'threatened by Labour activist' http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw7afI6CU
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
? Leadsom is neither. And she's still in the race.
Yes, she is by far the best of the bunch.
My current favourite (not in the betting sense) too.
If he's right, there must be value on Leadsom and Crabb.
Yes. But the mud thrown at Crabb could be terminal to his chances this time around. I could never vote for him with those past associations. Strange how Ruth Davidson is a backer.
The penny has just dropped. In the immediate aftermath of the Brexit result there was turmoil in the currency and stock markets. Many of us expected the Brexiteers to appear making reassuring noises and remarks. Boris popped up and attempted this but where was Gove? Silent and invisible - until today. Now we know why. He was busy plotting.
Several sources say Gove quit because Johnson wouldn't agree to @odysseanproject, Dominic Cummings taking senior role in No 10
Oh my
Dominic Cummings near number 10. That's mental.
Hmm, think Steve Hilton and multiply by 20,000.
Talking of Hilton, his stab in the back of Cameron in the days leading up to the referendum must rank pretty highly in the betrayal stakes.
Vile, duplicitous, odious and ungrateful toad. Sod off back to California. Bring back Andy Coulson
Lol, but subsequent events have shown exactly why the PM was prepared to burn a massive amount of political capital to get a tabloid editor onside in #10.
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
? Leadsom is neither. And she's still in the race.
The single market comes with an opportunity cost on trade. The size of that will start to become apparent as other free trade deals are negotiated.
There is also the question of whether it is worth our while to cede sovereignty for the benefits of free access to markets like Croatia, Latvia, Greece etc which are of negligible value to us.
First we had Boris campaigning for Leave whilst wanting Remain to win. Now we have his side-kick Gove campaigning for PM whilst wanting May to win. Strange times indeed!
Osborne is probably going to be at the FCO or Home office. Also, after this treachery I don't see Gove getting anything other than Minister for Brexit and DPM, he's not to be trusted.
Great works are going to be produced in future generations about the events of the last week. It has been utterly compelling drama with the most extraordinary twists.
Should 172 MPs be able to subvert the will of the 500,000 party members
Yes or No
No
Yes. We elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf, not to commit us to a course of action from what might have been years ago, when the situation may have changed dramatically, particualrly when the win of those members cannot be assumed to be the same now as it was then (though it could be so).
Those 172 MPs are in parliament to serve their constituents.
Yes they are - and it is their responsibility to decide how best to serve their constituents, and if their constituents don't like how they do it they can vote them out. There is no way for them to reliably know what would be most popular with the majority of their constituents, and even if they did, that might not be what was best for them.
My Lab MP genuinely thought Kendall would win leadership election in 2015. His excitable tweets as her odds fell in the early days were laughable. Mind you he was running her campaign.
Same last week with EU
I have come to the conclusion maybe his judgement isnt very good
That may be so - nothing to say our MPs are chosen by their parties for their judgement.
Osborne is probably going to be at the FCO or Home office.
As much as the party has accepted Leave is happening, and the need for the sides to come together, Osborne at FCO would surely be a bit provocative?
I don't know, if I wanted trade deals signed Osborne seems like the kind of person who could make them happen. Persuasive, scheming and altogether a bastard. Now that the issue of Brexit has been settled and we are going to leave, the party will fall in line behind that position.
I can't see any Labour leader being able to defeat May in a general election. She's like Thatcher II.
I really don't see her like that at all. I'm baffled she polls so well.
.............Straight to WTO, which apparently is what Gove wants, is a route to further catastrophe
That was not the conclusion of the HoC committee headed by Crispin Blunt. Why do you think that tariffs of 5% to 10% on manufactured goods would be so disastrous? Have they been terrible for America and China?
In the end WTO might be fine for us. But the total destabilisation of Instant WTO would be catastrophic. ....... There really is no point in tearing all this up, and wrecking the joint entirely, and disrupting so much European business, to achieve some ideological purity of WTO status. Meanwhile when we are in the EEA we CAN start making our own trade deals, so that when and if we do decide to go completely independent on trade, it won't be such a horrible dislocation.
I agree with your point about the tearing up but in a negotiation such as this you need to be able to accomodate the "worst case" scenario and then negotiate for things that are better than that. If your opponent knows that you are able to walk away or let the clock run out at two years into a situation where they risk losing some of the flows of money they are currently getting, it strengthens your position. We also have to acknowledge that sanity may not prevail on the EU side for an entity that cannot even end their two HQ fiasco. They just might not be capable of seeing sense. In which case their £10bn EU budget hole and further billions in lost exports (from Germany etc) caused by cheaper product substitution may be the result.
Great works are going to be produced in future generations about the events of the last week. It has been utterly compelling drama with the most extraordinary twists.
Should 172 MPs be able to subvert the will of the 500,000 party members
Yes or No
No
Yes. We elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf, not to commit us to a course of action from what might have been years ago, when the situation may have changed dramatically, particualrly when the win of those members cannot be assumed to be the same now as it was then (though it could be so).
Those 172 MPs are in parliament to serve their constituents.
Yes they are - and it is their responsibility to decide how best to serve their constituents, and if their constituents don't like how they do it they can vote them out. There is no way for them to reliably know what would be most popular with the majority of their constituents, and even if they did, that might not be what was best for them.
My Lab MP genuinely thought Kendall would win leadership election in 2015. His excitable tweets as her odds fell in the early days were laughable. Mind you he was running her campaign.
Same last week with EU
I have come to the conclusion maybe his judgement isnt very good
That may be so - nothing to say our MPs are chosen by their parties for their judgement.
Think going from Benn to Toby shows Chesterfield CLP must have changed somewhat
Osborne is probably going to be at the FCO or Home office.
As much as the party has accepted Leave is happening, and the need for the sides to come together, Osborne at FCO would surely be a bit provocative?
I don't know, if I wanted trade deals signed Osborne seems like the kind of person who could make them happen. Persuasive, scheming and altogether a bastard. Now that the issue of Brexit has been settled and we are going to leave, the party will fall in line behind that position.
No. Osborne only does things that benefit himself, his power base and his career. A thoroughly unsuitable person to trust.
Where was May speaking from during her 'you can judge me by my record' speech earlier? Al those books behind her, I immediately thought of Yes Prime Minister and Hacker's speech preparation, and what sort of music or backgrounds to use to either cover or mitigate anything too bold or not bold enough in the speech.
A chum has just reminded me that both May and Mrs Merkel are the daughters of clergymen. Neither Catholics I hasten to add.
Lord Hersham might you venture a few numbers for the first round voting?
May - 50%+
Really tricky one that, and without access to the House of Peers (Dave's resignation honours surely!!), and attendant hostelries, can only venture a guess.
Hmm, perhaps 40%, a smidgen higher, would have thought 50% on first ballot is too ambitious a hurdle.
Have we noted that in backing Boris the Sun got it wrong?
I thought they called him bonking Bozza recently, not exactly the most forthright backing? I'd imagine the Sun would have backed May if it was those two in the members' vote.
"Gove is a Machiavelli who seeks to achieve power at any cost, even if it harms the country"
Do his actions in the past hold this up? * He was close friends with Cameron and Osborne, to the extent that he had regular lunches with the latter even after declaring for LEAVE... * ...and then he betrayed both * He tried an intellectual approach in early LEAVE campaigning arguing for a democratic dawn in Europe, but that didn't work... * *...so he quickly gave up and spent six weeks Screaming At Migrants in the Sun and Mail * He had a good working relationship with BoJo * ...and then he betrayed him also. * He said for years he wouldn't stand for PM... * ...and then he stood for PM
In short, he uses people and ideas as long as they work towards his goals and when they don't, he drops them quickly and tries another. This is not a bad technique in certain professions (pilot, for example) but I'm not sure it's good for a PM
If I understand correctly, Gove's plan is the most lengthy and entangled and would take some (many?) years to enact (never mind succeed). But because of its appeal to antiimmigration voters, it will be electorally popular and the Blues do like to get that 50%. You are concerned that his plan is bad for the UK. What makes you think he cares?
Osborne is probably going to be at the FCO or Home office. Also, after this treachery I don't see Gove getting anything other than Minister for Brexit and DPM, he's not to be trusted.
Why does Osborne need pampering? Surely he's damaged goods? And Gove has a good chance of making the final two doesn't he?
Great works are going to be produced in future generations about the events of the last week. It has been utterly compelling drama with the most extraordinary twists.
Should 172 MPs be able to subvert the will of the 500,000 party members
Yes or No
No
Yes. We elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf, not to commit us to a course of action from what might have been years ago, when the situation may have changed dramatically, particualrly when the win of those members cannot be assumed to be the same now as it was then (though it could be so).
Those 172 MPs are in parliament to serve their constituents.
Yes they are - and it is their responsibility to decide how best to serve their constituents, and if their constituents don't like how they do it they can vote them out. There is no way for them to reliably know what would be most popular with the majority of their constituents, and even if they did, that might not be what was best for them.
My Lab MP genuinely thought Kendall would win leadership election in 2015. His excitable tweets as her odds fell in the early days were laughable. Mind you he was running her campaign.
Same last week with EU
I have come to the conclusion maybe his judgement isnt very good
That may be so - nothing to say our MPs are chosen by their parties for their judgement.
Think going from Benn to Toby shows Chesterfield CLP must have changed somewhat
Have we noted that in backing Boris the Sun got it wrong?
I thought they called him bonking Bozza recently, not exactly the most forthright backing? I'd imagine the Sun would have backed May if it was those two in the members' vote.
Bonking has been The Sun's highest compliment for decades.
Osborne is probably going to be at the FCO or Home office.
As much as the party has accepted Leave is happening, and the need for the sides to come together, Osborne at FCO would surely be a bit provocative?
I don't know, if I wanted trade deals signed Osborne seems like the kind of person who could make them happen. Persuasive, scheming and altogether a bastard. Now that the issue of Brexit has been settled and we are going to leave, the party will fall in line behind that position.
No. Osborne only does things that benefit himself, his power base and his career. A thoroughly unsuitable person to trust.
Don't disagree, but what damage could he really do at the FCO? Brexit is won and we need to move on. Osborne, like it or not, is one of the party's big beasts, I'd rather have him in the tent than outside the tent. The only other place I can think for him is to take over from Christine Lagarde, but I'm not sure that having just left the EU we could land that position.
Can anyone think of a more ruthless political double-crossing? I have to say that I can't.
I'd prefer double crossing and straight talking to the gutless display of spinelessness which led to Gordon Brown's coronation.
When I was rugby coaching, if a player wasn't performing I'd tell him he wasn't good enough and drop him. Nine times out of ten that player would always strive to over-perform to get back into the side and prove me wrong.
It was the way I was treated as a player and my players expected the same. It was better for everyone concerned to be brutally honest so we picked the best side. It brought silverware at the end of every season.
Ruthlessness bring success. And we're all still friends.
In politics none of them are friends. So what's the point of keeping one's counsel.
Gove did the right thing for the Tory team.
You sound as though you are assuming that had Gove not run, Johnson would have had the leadership in the bag or at least had a good chance of getting it. I am not convinced that is so.
But the point s good: Bojo really WAS underperforming, very badly, at the worst time. The week after the vote was crucial. He needed to be out there, on TV, visible, and in the Commons, explaining how great it all was, reassuring everyong, being Churchill in the Blitz, cheering us all up. That's his USP.
Yet he vanished, and he vanished so as to conspire. And then he wrote that terrible column, which he then disowned. At the most crucial moment, he was found very badly wanting.
It's a shame, he is a highly clever man. But if he flakes out in tough situations, do we want us leading us during Brexit? Nope.
It won't do. We hoped for Boris, a wonderful cheerful Falstaff with brains. Now we have a choice between a witch and a bespectacled serial killer.
? Leadsom is neither. And she's still in the race.
Yes, she is by far the best of the bunch.
WHY?
1. Massive experience in business management. 2. Brexiter - therefore will be trusted by 2/3 of tory members right from the start. 3. Very strong in the media 4. Financial acumen better than 90% or more of HoC 5. Works well with others. Have a look at this for other thoughts and comparisons http://iaindale.com/posts/2016/06/29/conservative-leadership-runners-riders-andrea-leadsom
Comments
Leadsom is neither. And she's still in the race.
The way Gove has behaved, I have not seen in 40 years. And, let us not hear how principled he is.
He and his wife has only one ambition. For him to become PM.
I hope he does succeed.
His job is now done. Ruthlessly and efficiently.
It's a bit nasty to criticise someone for wearing glasses. I did mention May's type 1 diabetis, but only because I wondered whether her opponents might use it and because symptoms can get exacerbated under stress, and there's likely to be far more stress as PM than there has been as Home Secretary.
And the harpie wimmin of the Left will go bonkers, another reason to back Theresa.
Theresa May.
That's increasingly how I'm seeing it? He really is gonna go for this?
http://newsthump.com/2016/06/30/nigerian-princes-lining-up-to-sign-trade-deals-claims-triumphant-leave-campaign/
I think the moment the word "Israel" is mentioned, people get to battle stations. He did not compare IS and Israel.
I think there is deep seated guilt in Europe regarding the Jewish people that millions were killed while the rest did nothing.
As I have said before, Palestinians did not kill 6 million Jews. Europeans did. Palestinians are only suffering because Jews emigrating from Europe kicked them out of their homes.
Same last week with EU
I have come to the conclusion maybe his judgement isnt very good
HSBC has confirmed that it will keep its headquarters in London despite the shock decision for the UK to leave the EU.
Douglas Flint, chairman, told City executives gathered at a conference in London that HSBC would stick to its plan to keep its headquarters in the UK.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hsbc-headquarters-london-flint-brexit-eu-referendum-passporting-a7111236.html
If he's right, there must be value on Leadsom and Crabb.
http://reaction.life/boris-done-cuckoo-nest-plot/
Interestingly, Leadsom's maiden name is Salmon.
Even Milne is number 7
Although following the down thread shocker that Winton bats for the other side I'd venture to suggest that Crabb need better researchers than the leading lights of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Some Israelis/Jews are honest enough to admit it, Sean...
Britain is open for business.
http://heatst.com/uk/11-countries-gearing-up-to-strike-trade-deals-with-britain/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/30/capital-markets-are-back-in-action-after-brexit-vote-as-bat-and/
Come to that, who is Philip Hammond?
PM: May
CoE: Hammond
FS: Hunt
HS: Gove
But what about a Minister for Brexit?
Chortle ...
There is also the question of whether it is worth our while to cede sovereignty for the benefits of free access to markets like Croatia, Latvia, Greece etc which are of negligible value to us.
What is the real story here?
May - 50%+
[clicks "Refresh" on email again]
LOL
@HuffPostUK: Why Conservatives must now unite behind Theresa May - @nadhimzahawi blogs https://t.co/RDjYsqdyU0 https://t.co/7sXXj39WsC
Hmm, perhaps 40%, a smidgen higher, would have thought 50% on first ballot is too ambitious a hurdle.
twitter.com/WalesPolitics/status/748456668074119168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
To be fair, very few people saw Gove's move coming. Boris certainly didn't.
"Gove is a Machiavelli who seeks to achieve power at any cost, even if it harms the country"
Do his actions in the past hold this up?
* He was close friends with Cameron and Osborne, to the extent that he had regular lunches with the latter even after declaring for LEAVE...
* ...and then he betrayed both
* He tried an intellectual approach in early LEAVE campaigning arguing for a democratic dawn in Europe, but that didn't work...
* *...so he quickly gave up and spent six weeks Screaming At Migrants in the Sun and Mail
* He had a good working relationship with BoJo
* ...and then he betrayed him also.
* He said for years he wouldn't stand for PM...
* ...and then he stood for PM
In short, he uses people and ideas as long as they work towards his goals and when they don't, he drops them quickly and tries another. This is not a bad technique in certain professions (pilot, for example) but I'm not sure it's good for a PM
If I understand correctly, Gove's plan is the most lengthy and entangled and would take some (many?) years to enact (never mind succeed). But because of its appeal to antiimmigration voters, it will be electorally popular and the Blues do like to get that 50%. You are concerned that his plan is bad for the UK. What makes you think he cares?
Gove, Leadsom and Fox all only picking up endorsements very slowly - looks as if most MPs are waiting to see how things go before going public.
May - 75
Crabb - 21
Gove - 12
Leadsom - 11
Fox - 9
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/whos-backing-who-our-running-list-of-mps-supporting-each-leadership-candidate.html
2. Brexiter - therefore will be trusted by 2/3 of tory members right from the start.
3. Very strong in the media
4. Financial acumen better than 90% or more of HoC
5. Works well with others.
Have a look at this for other thoughts and comparisons
http://iaindale.com/posts/2016/06/29/conservative-leadership-runners-riders-andrea-leadsom