In a May vs Leadsom battle don't underestimate the importance of Leadsom being the woman who raised a family while holding down a top job. May, comes across colder and with no children will be harder to relate to.
Oh I hope they don't push that too hard. I adored Davidson in the Wembly debate for picking up on the robotic 'I'm a mother/grandmother' schtick the other side were doing and joking about it.
That was because it seemed to be coming up every other line though, so i'm sure it couldn't be hammered so hard as to annoy during a campaign.
Didn't the Ice Pixie push that line hard in the Labour leadership debate? "As a mother..."
If my view isn't totally off re a Leadsom/Gove plan - his speech talked a great deal about the importance of family et al. That plays well with Leadsom's appeal.
May has always come across as hard and cool - her space-age dress sense just emphasises it. This has a certain appeal, I prefer Leadsom's warmer softer manner.
Are you on? I was working on a Brexit piece at work, and was trying to calculate exports to the EU as a percent of GDP. We'd all been working a 9% number or somesuch, but when I did the sums it came out as a little over 12%.
It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.
I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.
It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.
Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.
.........maybe? In today's political turmoil who knows what might happen today let alone next week.
Impeachment? Is that different from an act of attainder?
Impeach who? How?
That Mail article on Blair.
How can he be impeached when he holds no office?
Arguably, he *should* have been impeached in 2004, when it was clear that he'd misled parliament into backing war in Iraq, but that boat has long since sailed.
I didn't think it made sense, I was just curious whether the proposed mechanism of impeachment was the same or different to the use of attainder.
This is from memory, but impeachment is just like a trial at the Bar of the house.
Attainder is a specific Act of Parliament (I don't think you even get to make representations in your own defence - it's not a court case). And it's far nastier - all your worldly goods are forfeited and you (and your children) are stripped of all titles, offices and roles.
I believe the last usage was Edward Fitzgerald after the 1798 rebellion. Warren Hastings was impeached in 1788, while Meville was acquitted in 1806.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
There is no firewall. The public won't care about such technicalities. Either we make it work or we don't and are punished. That is how the public votes.
By choosing Leadsom the Tories say 'we are the party of BREXIT'.
By choosing May the Tories say 'we are the party of the United Kingdom - it was a close call, but decisive, and will now get on with it'.
May has no responsibility for LEAVE claims - Leadsom 100%.
PM Leadsom - 'when are you going to build a hospital a week? - from here to 2020......
No you're splitting hairs. May has sought to become PM after the Leave manifesto was voted for she needs to make it work just as much as anyone else.
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. .
But that is not what people voted for, not for certain. Oh yes, those lines were pushed hard, and there would be a poisonous reaction to not doing it that would be felt very loudly, but as VoteLeave defended time and again when asked for more details, they were not the government, ie their lines would not form government policy for sure if they won.
There is a good argument to be made that many people do indeed want no FOM at all. But is simply not the case that that is what people voted for, since the question was Leave and no other details, so we cannot know how firm people are on that question, for how many is it critical and for how many is it an acceptable thing to sacrifice.
Lacking proof of how many people voted on the basis of FOM, the government has a duty to seek the best deal it thinks the country can get and it might decide that includes FOM, it might not, and there is no democratic mandate to say they shouldn't do that. Indeed, given some leavers want that and many (though not all) remainers will, it could be counter argued that in the absence of FOM being part of the official question, then the most democratic solution may well be a compromise which includes leave but FOM.
Any option which includes FOM will be politically riotous. Many would argue, for different reasons, that it is in any case a bad idea. But unless it is put up as official party policy, opposed by a different leave (or rejoin) policy, and loses at an election, implementing it would not be going against what the public instructed, even if many of the public will be very disappointed indeed.
If we needed to know exactly which bits of a manifesto/which part of the campaign people care about when voting, we'd need a box on the ballots for people to explain their vote to let the winner know what parts have a mandate.
"Voted Tory but only as I hate Corbyn - so don't swing too hard right" "Voted Remain, but only due to economic fear - no joining the Euro!"
Betfair has already decided its a May v Leadsom final. Their prices add up to over 92%.
Having drifted overnight Owen Smith's price is back to 6.8-7.2 so hopefully he will make his bid for the Labour party leadership next week.
Sadly, my Lab bets are a mess, mostly placed months ago when I thought the party would shift away from left types and head back to the centre. I have no idea who is going to actually stand in the end. If it's a truly open competition then some of mine may come into play (Yvette, Jarvis etc), otherwise I'm a bit stuffed.
However, if Balls appears at Batley and runs and wins leadership, then its mega pay day.
rottenborough. Yes, I've wondered about Balls returning to the H of C via Batley and thus making himself eligible for the race. Similarly David Miliband who I agree with PBers seems to be a crazy price. To have any chance he has to be an MP. AS his price is ridiculously short perhaps this is being considered ??? I doubt it.
If there's no contest soon we are all going to end up with our stake money tied up for some considerable time - most likely on losers!
We're all struggling to get past the simple statement "Of course May's going to win". The only counter-argument I can muster is that the media dislike one-horse races, so at some point (probably after a debate) they're going to declare that she made a horrible gaffe and thast her opponent masterfully seized advantage. That gives some trading bet advantage - when May gets to 1.1, lay her and wait for the moment. But in the end I think she'll win anyway.
In reply to Moses, I don't expect Corbyn to demand Blair's arrest, because of the way the left thinks (including me). We generally don't go in for targeting individuals because we think it distracts attention from criticising the system. If Iraq was because of a systemic tendency of Western powers to throw their weight about in third world countries, often to disastrous effect, that has important lessons for us in e.g. Syria. If it was merely that Blair misled people (perhaps including himself), that doesn't teach us anything. (The problem about the systemic approach is that it will be perceived as complicated and unsexy, and the media will say Corbyn's missed his chance, but he doesn't worry about that sort of thing.)
It's like tax avoidance. I don't waste my time slagging of Amazon, because I'm sure that loads of competitors do just the same. The problem isn't Amazon, it's the system that rewards tax avoidance.
"We generally don't go in for targeting individuals..."
Tell that to members of Major's government. Or members of your own government targeted by Brown's thugs in his attempts to wrest power from Blair. Or the smears against Cameron that came direct from No.10 via McBride. Or picketing outside people's houses during Grangemouth, etc, etc.
Yes Nick, I'm sure that the left don't target individuals, generally or otherwise.
You raise an interesting point about McBride who currently works for Lady Nugee but is mates with Watson.
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
It is undeniably smart politics, whether she does anything with the prize once she has got it is an altogether different matter. I have nothing against her but she does seem to me to be the sort of politician that will be overly concerned with how things reflect on her. Not someone to take the difficult unpopular decisions methinks.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. Having gone through the pain I can't see the half way house satisfying anyone but the City types. If FoM continues, the Mail, Sun etc will continue to blame everything on "immigrants", the poisonous atmosphere will continue and we will be right back where we started asking ourselves was it worth it.
If we end up with a solution that is perceived to be tailored to suit those already doing very well, in London in particular, then I think we are heading for problems. But as Scott constantly reminded us, the "elite" will always come out on top, they will make sure Brexit is fixed to suit their needs. Thepoor saps on the sink estates who voted to give them Brexit will go away empty handed, it was ever thus.
Stodge was a Leaver, not sure SO holds that view and in any case your proposed plan would destroy the economy
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
There is no firewall. The public won't care about such technicalities. Either we make it work or we don't and are punished. That is how the public votes.
By choosing Leadsom the Tories say 'we are the party of BREXIT'.
By choosing May the Tories say 'we are the party of the United Kingdom - it was a close call, but decisive, and will now get on with it'.
May has no responsibility for LEAVE claims - Leadsom 100%.
PM Leadsom - 'when are you going to build a hospital a week? - from here to 2020......
No you're splitting hairs. May has sought to become PM after the Leave manifesto was voted for she needs to make it work just as much as anyone else.
She needs to make leave work just as much as anyone else. She does not have to make specific forms of leave, as advanced by VoteLeave, work. That is the crucial distinction. VoteLeave spanned many parties and organisations, it had ideas, many of which were agreed across the board, but not a manifesto. IDS was blunt but correct that actually all they had were a series of possibilities. The public often fail to realise that, will be angry when they do, but that's politics - they can express dissatisfaction at the next election, I have no doubt they'll still be angry at elites then.
And a good day to all, the sun is finally out, time to enjoy it.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
There is no firewall. The public won't care about such technicalities. Either we make it work or we don't and are punished. That is how the public votes.
By choosing Leadsom the Tories say 'we are the party of BREXIT'.
By choosing May the Tories say 'we are the party of the United Kingdom - it was a close call, but decisive, and will now get on with it'.
May has no responsibility for LEAVE claims - Leadsom 100%.
PM Leadsom - 'when are you going to build a hospital a week? - from here to 2020......
That's why May will win, the Tories hope it will get off the hook and hope the electorate forget which party actually brought about this whole mess.
People are always saying Cameron has not guts or vision and is a manager, and he won.
I would disagree with that, actually, but there it is.
Which bit would you disagree with, that he won, or that he has not guts or vision? I'm quite well disposed to Cameron, but as Mr Herdson's piece says, many in the party itself never reallyliked him, and definitely criticised him as having no real vision.
Ironically, he got round to his vision in his 2015 Conference speech. And an excellent vision it was. Shame he now can't deliver it.
And then he undid it all by having eff all in the Queen's Speech - I cite as Exhibit A *space ports*
IMO (and I think evidence backs this up) space ports will just be a plaything unless they can actually send things to orbit. And the UK is not ideally suited for the most productive orbits as you ideally need to launch eastwards to get the advantage from the Earth's rotation. Sadly, in our case this means debris from stages will fall on or near other countries' territorial waters. I think we're better off for polar or near-polar orbits though, as is Venderberg on the US west coast. It's also best to be near the equator, where you get the biggest effect from the Earth's rotation.
ISTR these were the reasons we launched our few rockets from Woomera: we could launch eastwards because there were large areas of nothing for debris to fall in (and the same with Russia).
I think. Orbital mechanics is hardly my strong suit!
Suborbital flights means we're just investing millions for Branson's benefit.
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
Remember your Churchill: cats looks down at you whereas pigs treat you as an equal.
They could never have been from the same clan.
David. Both clans seem a bit lofty from where I'm sat. I'm guessing the Hoggs aren't the pigs?
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
It's stretched my braincells trying to keep up with the tsunami of no-names resigning/joining Corbyn's cabinet. Some who've been MPs for a decade or more have been mentioned for the first time on PB.
This is from memory, but impeachment is just like a trial at the Bar of the house.
Attainder is a specific Act of Parliament (I don't think you even get to make representations in your own defence - it's not a court case). And it's far nastier - all your worldly goods are forfeited and you (and your children) are stripped of all titles, offices and roles.
I believe the last usage was Edward Fitzgerald after the 1798 rebellion. Warren Hastings was impeached in 1788, while Meville was acquitted in 1806.
Before that of course you could be killed by an Act of Attainder.
So the difference is impeachment is a trial by the House, attainder is you being declared guilty without a trial by the will of the house?
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
As far as I'm aware the Rees-Moggs didn't feature in Dukes of Hazard.
Mr. stjohn, we all make mistakes, the important thing is to recognise that. [We live in hope Mr. Eagles develops this way when it comes to classical history].
Yes NOM certainly is on the cards, the swing to the ALP is significant but probably not enough to change the government. The Coalition seem to be running very well in Queensland so will hope to do well there later on, the ALP doing above expectations in New South Wales though
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
It is undeniably smart politics, whether she does anything with the prize once she has got it is an altogether different matter. I have nothing against her but she does seem to me to be the sort of politician that will be overly concerned with how things reflect on her. Not someone to take the difficult unpopular decisions methinks.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. Having gone through the pain I can't see the half way house satisfying anyone but the City types. If FoM continues, the Mail, Sun etc will continue to blame everything on "immigrants", the poisonous atmosphere will continue and we will be right back where we started asking ourselves was it worth it.
If we end up with a solution that is perceived to be tailored to suit those already doing very well, in London in particular, then I think we are heading for problems. But as Scott constantly reminded us, the "elite" will always come out on top, they will make sure Brexit is fixed to suit their needs. Thepoor saps on the sink estates who voted to give them Brexit will go away empty handed, it was ever thus.
May will certainly not do anything for the poor unless it is to make them poorer.
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
As far as I'm aware the Rees-Moggs didn't feature in Dukes of Hazard.
Populus mea culpa "But two methodological steps were wrong – and caused us to overstate support for remaining in the EU by over 6%. These were the ways that we tried to take account of how undecided voters would end up voting, and the way that we estimated the likelihood to vote of different groups." "Past elections and referendums have proved that estimating turnout, and who will actually vote, on the basis only of how likely respondents say they are to vote, is highly prone to error" http://www.populus.co.uk/2016/06/populus-published-poll/ "Having now studied turnout at the referendum and compared it to our analysis of the demographic composition of the voting electorate at previous referendums and general elections, we have concluded that turnout patterns are so different that a demographically based propensity-to-vote model is unlikely ever to produce an accurate picture of turnout other than by sheer luck."
May will have 150 seething leaver MPs and a 65% leaver membership against her as she rolls out a dogsh8t deal from Brussels.
She has none of Cameron's vote winning power or charisma or intelligence to carry the party. She will not be able to control them.
This is the reason she's said she'll appoint a leaver as Brexit negotiator. (Leadsom looks like a good bet for that role if May wins).
I don't think she'll settle for a bad deal, actually. Yes, on balance she said she was for remain, but she's always had a very strong Eurosceptic streak. Some have even suggested that deep down she was a leaver but for party loyalty (and quite possibly positioning) she thought it best to stick with Cameron but keep her head down. That was rather astute.
I think she'll easily control the party. She's quiet, safe, managerial, disciplined.
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
It is undeniably smart politics, whether she does anything with the prize once she has got it is an altogether different matter. I have nothing against her but she does seem to me to be the sort of politician that will be overly concerned with how things reflect on her. Not someone to take the difficult unpopular decisions methinks.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. Having gone through the pain I can't see the half way house satisfying anyone but the City types. If FoM continues, the Mail, Sun etc will continue to blame everything on "immigrants", the poisonous atmosphere will continue and we will be right back where we started asking ourselves was it worth it.
If we end up with a solution that is perceived to be tailored to suit those already doing very well, in London in particular, then I think we are heading for problems. But as Scott constantly reminded us, the "elite" will always come out on top, they will make sure Brexit is fixed to suit their needs. Thepoor saps on the sink estates who voted to give them Brexit will go away empty handed, it was ever thus.
Mr T your analysis is absolutely correct in my view. And the electorate will not forgive the tories for making such a dreadful choice.
May is the candidate Nigel Farage would choose. His perfect candidate.
Couldn't agree more. The City types here are seemingly keen on that outcome as it suits them - those who voted Leave in the rest of the country not so much. It's a very dangerous fudge. I see the BBC is bigging up May, as are Remain journalists all over the papers.
They think she'll water it all down and give them the closest thing to the status quo possible.
Won't Labor do better than the coalition on the second prefs?
Australia's politics is so swift and brutal it genuinely looks like the country cannot ever make up its mind.
That's the problem when u have an election every 3 years.
Three years does seem a bit short to me. You really can't do anything that takes more than about 18 months to play out.
That being said, it does mean there are a lot of betting opportunities.
American Presidential terms are more or less three years considering how long it takes to select a candidate. Tho the leader of the free world probs needs more scrutiny than others....
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
To be fair Mr Gove did expound on large areas of this yesterday for people with stamina. I am particularly looking forward to the extra £100 million per week for the NHS, which is sorely needed.
People are always saying Cameron has not guts or vision and is a manager, and he won.
I would disagree with that, actually, but there it is.
Which bit would you disagree with, that he won, or that he has not guts or vision? I'm quite well disposed to Cameron, but as Mr Herdson's piece says, many in the party itself never reallyliked him, and definitely criticised him as having no real vision.
Ironically, he got round to his vision in his 2015 Conference speech. And an excellent vision it was. Shame he now can't deliver it.
And then he undid it all by having eff all in the Queen's Speech - I cite as Exhibit A *space ports*
IMO (and I think evidence backs this up) space ports will just be a plaything unless they can actually send things to orbit. And the UK is not ideally suited for the most productive orbits as you ideally need to launch eastwards to get the advantage from the Earth's rotation. Sadly, in our case this means debris from stages will fall on or near other countries' territorial waters. I think we're better off for polar or near-polar orbits though, as is Venderberg on the US west coast. It's also best to be near the equator, where you get the biggest effect from the Earth's rotation.
ISTR these were the reasons we launched our few rockets from Woomera: we could launch eastwards because there were large areas of nothing for debris to fall in (and the same with Russia).
I think. Orbital mechanics is hardly my strong suit!
Suborbital flights means we're just investing millions for Branson's benefit.
The UK Space Port non-decsion is actually the correct decision. Millions upon millions have been spent on Spaceport America in the US. Nothing has launched from there. Branson may or may not end up using it, but Blue Origin's vertical launch and recovery system is now actually ahead of SS2 in testing. So, for sub orbital flight it is probably a loser as well.
For orbital launches, once SpaceX starts re-using recovered first stages... well that is the one to beat.
Yes, the big issue is flying east. Generally, bombing France and Germany is not considered a commercially viable idea these days... And it will be a long, long time before even a recoverable vehicle will be allowed to fly over populated areas.
He cheerfully acknowledged that he would have been terrible at the job. It was the betrayal by a friend that he resented. He was always a man of his word - and expected people to keep their promises.
(Kate - the baby in question - is an absolute star who I rate incredibly highly)
He was right then, he would have been terrible at it!
I can see though why he made such a good Lord Chancellor on two occasions.
If you ever go to Churchill College it's worth digging out his correspondence with Robert Runcie. I think they exchanged 16 letters on whether it is the "property" or the "nature" of God to have mercy....
Was he also an admirer of Edward Gibbon by any chance?
He certainly recommended that I read it (after all he was trained in the Greats) but I don't recall whether he was an admirer or not!
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
To be fair Mr Gove did expound on large areas of this yesterday for people with stamina. I am particularly looking forward to the extra £100 million per week for the NHS, which is sorely needed.
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
To be fair Mr Gove did expound on large areas of this yesterday for people with stamina. I am particularly looking forward to the extra £100 million per week for the NHS, which is sorely needed.
I suspect that my hopes of another £100 million per week for lawyers have better prospects. That is sorely needed too, of course.
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
Remember your Churchill: cats looks down at you whereas pigs treat you as an equal.
They could never have been from the same clan.
David. Both clans seem a bit lofty from where I'm sat. I'm guessing the Hoggs aren't the pigs?
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
Some people are. But you surely would not say that 100% of the people who voted Leave voted for the entirety of that programme. We don't know how many did. Even if many did, it still wouldn't mean 52% of people voted for it, particularly since we were told many times too that VoteLeave was not the only Leave campaign, and they didn't all agree, even though VoteLeave was the main one.
Personally I never liked several parts of the Leave platform, particularly around immigration, and as I'm not a Tory I'm not worried about them bleeding support to UKIP if they go for a less strict version of Leave either. And on the principle of governing for everyone in the country, given 48% were for Remain and 52% for Leave, Leave + FOM fits that, possibly.
I don't understand the problem. If people really don't want FOM they can hope a Leaver who advocates that wins, or vote for a party that will do it later. But there is no proven popular will for specific elements of the VoteLeave programme.
I highly suspect FOM was one of the more popular parts, admittedly. The whole platform might, on balance, be more popular than alternatives. But it is simply untrue for people to say, whether remainers or leavers, that the country voted for that specific policy platform. Even if there had been only one leave campaign, like it was a single party option, that would be questionable. With other ones existing, and people who support bits and not others, it is risible to suggest that so definitively
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
Vote Leave are not appointing the PM yet. The referendum is not the same as voting in a Govt. Mr Meeks, why not take the weekend off and get used to the fact that your side lost and take a look at why your predictions on here of 60% REMAIN were so wrong. You seem to be in the Anger stage of suffering a death in the family.
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
Remember your Churchill: cats looks down at you whereas pigs treat you as an equal.
They could never have been from the same clan.
David. Both clans seem a bit lofty from where I'm sat. I'm guessing the Hoggs aren't the pigs?
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
It is undeniably smart politics, whether she does anything with the prize once she has got it is an altogether different matter. I have nothing against her but she does seem to me to be the sort of politician that will be overly concerned with how things reflect on her. Not someone to take the difficult unpopular decisions methinks.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. Having gone through the pain I can't see the half way house satisfying anyone but the City types. If FoM continues, the Mail, Sun etc will continue to blame everything on "immigrants", the poisonous atmosphere will continue and we will be right back where we started asking ourselves was it worth it.
If we end up with a solution that is perceived to be tailored to suit those already doing very well, in London in particular, then I think we are heading for problems. But as Scott constantly reminded us, the "elite" will always come out on top, they will make sure Brexit is fixed to suit their needs. Thepoor saps on the sink estates who voted to give them Brexit will go away empty handed, it was ever thus.
Mr T your analysis is absolutely correct in my view. And the electorate will not forgive the tories for making such a dreadful choice.
May is the candidate Nigel Farage would choose. His perfect candidate.
Couldn't agree more. The City types here are seemingly keen on that outcome as it suits them - those who voted Leave in the rest of the country not so much. It's a very dangerous fudge. I see the BBC is bigging up May, as are Remain journalists all over the papers.
They think she'll water it all down and give them the closest thing to the status quo possible.
Well, perhaps you and the rest of the Leave campaign shouldn't have promised them things that had no chance of being delivered.
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
Some people are. But you surely would not say that 100% of the people who voted Leave voted for the entirety of that programme. We don't know how many did. Even if many did, it still wouldn't mean 52% of people voted for it, particularly since we were told many times too that VoteLeave was not the only Leave campaign, and they didn't all agree, even though VoteLeave was the main one.
Personally I never liked several parts of the Leave platform, particularly around immigration, and as I'm not a Tory I'm not worried about them bleeding support to UKIP if they go for a less strict version of Leave either. And on the principle of governing for everyone in the country, given 48% were for Remain and 52% for Leave, Leave + FOM fits that, possibly.
I don't understand the problem. If people really don't want FOM they can hope a Leaver who advocates that wins, or vote for a party that will do it later. But there is no proven popular will for specific elements of the VoteLeave programme. I highly suspect FOM was one of the more popular parts, admittedly.
People are reinterpreting the referendum result on an a la carte basis. But there was in fact a clear statement what the official campaign were looking for. It is now being ignored.
And whenever I point that out, Leavers get irate with me. It is all very odd. It is as if there was a deliberate attempt to dupe the British public and now we're supposed not to notice.
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
Some people are. But you surely would not say that 100% of the people who voted Leave voted for the entirety of that programme. We don't know how many did. Even if many did, it still wouldn't mean 52% of people voted for it, particularly since we were told many times too that VoteLeave was not the only Leave campaign, and they didn't all agree, even though VoteLeave was the main one.
Personally I never liked several parts of the Leave platform, particularly around immigration, and as I'm not a Tory I'm not worried about them bleeding support to UKIP if they go for a less strict version of Leave either. And on the principle of governing for everyone in the country, given 48% were for Remain and 52% for Leave, Leave + FOM fits that, possibly.
I don't understand the problem. If people really don't want FOM they can hope a Leaver who advocates that wins, or vote for a party that will do it later. But there is no proven popular will for specific elements of the VoteLeave programme.
I highly suspect FOM was one of the more popular parts, admittedly. But it is simply untrue for people to say, whether remainers or leavers, that the country voted for that specific policy platform. Even if there had been only one leave campaign, like it was a single party option, that would be questionable. With other ones, it is risible to suggest that.
Can I ask what was it that persuaded you to vote leave ?
Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.
Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.
Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)
Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.
Butler was dead long before that.
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).
Powell's critique of Butler's actions (or inactions) in opting to serve under Home (which Powell of course didn't, so hardly an unbiased source) is beautiful.
I've never read it but I guess the gist is, 'R. A. Butler; making jellyfish look like brontosauruses since 1902'?
There was a mesmerizing clip in a TV programme about the 60s in which Powell describes the critical meeting with RAB, which culminates in the latter asking whether the metaphorical gun (ie refusal to serve under Home) Powell, Iain Macleaod and the others were proferring would hurt anyone. "Yes, RAB, it will indeed hurt". 'Oh, really, I'm not so sure about this...."
I've been rather busy this week and haven't been able to keep in touch with the news.
So would PBers be kind enough to give me a brief update on:
1) What tax rises and spending cuts were in Osborne's promised Emergency Budget.
2) How far the stock market has crashed. I assume from the BBC reports that the FTSE100 is now below 5,000 maybe even below 4,000.
Personally I'd be inclined to wait a little longer before gloating
Do we have a timetable for car factory closures and the City relocating to Frankfurt ?
Actually there is going to be a recession sooner or later - and probably sooner at that.
But that's wont be to do with Brexit but because of the economic cycle and the fundamentally unbalanced nature of the UK economy - as evidenced yet again by last week's ONS Economic Accounts.
We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.
They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.
Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.
If it looks like there's a realistic chance for the new PM to get a 40-50 seat majority while Labour is in such disarray, I think they should go for it.
Right now there is a realistic chance for over 100!
Im still not convinced by the argument that the tory majority would increase significantly or even at all in an early GE. I think the innacurate polls in 2015 genuinely pushed many in england to vote tory to block the lab/snp option so the natural tory support level is lower than that. An increased majority relys on labour hemorrhaging votes (to UKIP?) Or just not turning out. I know labours in a mess but im not sure theyll do so badly as to make an early GE worth the risk.
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
To be fair Mr Gove did expound on large areas of this yesterday for people with stamina. I am particularly looking forward to the extra £100 million per week for the NHS, which is sorely needed.
Is tho? Last term an extra £12bn was spent on it and this term an extra £ 8bn is going to be spent this term plus if another £5bn is spent because of Leaves victory then that's a hell of a lot of extra spending. And somehow some trusts still go into deficit? Wtf?!? I think its time to stop bailing out these trusts and tell to find savings within their given budgets. Will be unpopular but we are still spending way beyond our means.
We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.
They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.
Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.
If it looks like there's a realistic chance for the new PM to get a 40-50 seat majority while Labour is in such disarray, I think they should go for it.
Right now there is a realistic chance for over 100!
Im still not convinced by the argument that the tory majority would increase significantly or even at all in an early GE. I think the innacurate polls in 2015 genuinely pushed many in england to vote tory to block the lab/snp option so the natural tory support level is lower than that. An increased majority relys on labour hemorrhaging votes (to UKIP?) Or just not turning out. I know labours in a mess but im not sure theyll do so badly as to make an early GE worth the risk.
Labour will lose every seat which they hold & which LEAVE won (I appreciate we can't be altogether sure which these are).
"To some extent this poll of members is beside the point. There is a good chance that the next Labour leadership election will not be decided by members at all. Last time, Jeremy won with 250,000 votes. Next time, I would not be surprised if we replicated what happened recently in France and Italy where more than 2 million people voted for the leader of each country’s socialist party."
Having won the war, Brexiteers seem determined to lose the peace.
The first problem is having failed to define Leave during the campaign, they are now stuck with whether the leadership options are the "right sort" of leavers. Gove knifed Boris because he lacked idealogical purity, and stabbed himself with the same knife.
Secondly, the contradictory claims of the campaign will haunt Leavers to their political graves.
If Leadsom wins, the first and only question at PMQs for ever will be "Where is my £350?" She can't stand at the despatch box as First Lord of the Treasury and say "Bazinga"
May will do what it right for the country, and party, without any of that baggage.
Also
@theobertram: To win an election in 3 months: May To win a general election in 2020, maybe 2025: Crabb To risk losing: Gove, Leadsom To lose: Fox
If, in 3 months, the economic downsides of Brexit are beginning to bite, May could go to the country on an "economic stability" platform and win at a landslide. She might even be able to jettison some of the headbangers at the same time. Something along the lines of sign up to this or lose the whip.
If Leadsom is in charge and the economy tanks, she, and the party and Brexit as an idea, are toxic for years.
People are reinterpreting the referendum result on an a la carte basis. But there was in fact a clear statement what the official campaign were looking for. It is now being ignored.
And whenever I point that out, Leavers get irate with me. It is all very odd. It is as if there was a deliberate attempt to dupe the British public and now we're supposed not to notice.
I'm not irate with you - anyone who pretended before the vote that the VoteLeave prospectus would be and had to be implemented to the letter, be they from Remain or Leave, is simply incorrect about how our system works, and if they suggested definitive policy changes would happen they deserve criticism for that now as they know that was not certain whoever won.
There was a clear statement about what the main campaign was looking for. If they want to implement that in full, people now need to vote for a party that promises to implement it in full. Since there isn't an election yet, people wanting that programme in full need to support the Tory candidate who promises to implement it in full.
They might well win on that basis. My objection is to anyone claiming the people will have been ignored if they don't. But the fact is the question was just on leaving, not with what type of leave people wanted. There is no other option but for the government to interpret the best option from that.
Leaving is happening, that was the sole indisputable message of the vote. Without knowing how effective the campaigns were, which bits resonated most is not indisputable. Therefore interpreting the vote is not only permissable but obligatory.
Why you get snippy about that I do not know - I thought it was accepted we live in a representative democracy, and we just gave our representatives a statement of 'Leave, and here are some reasons we want to leave' with a thousand different views on the latter.
We might get the full VoteLeave programme. Anyone claiming betrayal for not getting it would be wrong.
I'm beginning to think an election might be a good idea after all, so the various options for leave are put to the test. Because despite your insistence, the people have not actually indicated which option they would prefer. If they don't want the government to a la carte this, then an election is needed to choose.
We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.
They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.
Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.
If it looks like there's a realistic chance for the new PM to get a 40-50 seat majority while Labour is in such disarray, I think they should go for it.
Right now there is a realistic chance for over 100!
Im still not convinced by the argument that the tory majority would increase significantly or even at all in an early GE. I think the innacurate polls in 2015 genuinely pushed many in england to vote tory to block the lab/snp option so the natural tory support level is lower than that. An increased majority relys on labour hemorrhaging votes (to UKIP?) Or just not turning out. I know labours in a mess but im not sure theyll do so badly as to make an early GE worth the risk.
Labour will lose every seat which they hold & which LEAVE won (I appreciate we can't be altogether sure which these are).
The Tories might also lose a number of seats to UKIP where LEAVE won if May does agree an EFTA/free movement deal
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
Remember your Churchill: cats looks down at you whereas pigs treat you as an equal.
They could never have been from the same clan.
David. Both clans seem a bit lofty from where I'm sat. I'm guessing the Hoggs aren't the pigs?
If we needed to know exactly which bits of a manifesto/which part of the campaign people care about when voting, we'd need a box on the ballots for people to explain their vote to let the winner know what parts have a mandate.
"Voted Tory but only as I hate Corbyn - so don't swing too hard right" "Voted Remain, but only due to economic fear - no joining the Euro!"
Loving the Liberal guy on ABC news feed. When I first started watching it an hour ago he was smug and certain of winning. Now, he's starting to sound desperate.
Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.
Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.
Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)
Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.
Butler was dead long before that.
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).
Powell's critique of Butler's actions (or inactions) in opting to serve under Home (which Powell of course didn't, so hardly an unbiased source) is beautiful.
I've never read it but I guess the gist is, 'R. A. Butler; making jellyfish look like brontosauruses since 1902'?
There was a mesmerizing clip in a TV programme about the 60s in which Powell describes the critical meeting with RAB, which culminates in the latter asking whether the metaphorical gun (ie refusal to serve under Home) Powell, Iain Macleaod and the others were proferring would hurt anyone. "Yes, RAB, it will indeed hurt". 'Oh, really, I'm not so sure about this...."
I wonder if that clip is out there.
Can't find the clip but I've posted a link to a book with the details in. If you google "Butler Powell gun bang" you get two or three references to it.
@MSmithsonPB: .@benrathe Stan James is offering 11/4 on Article 50 not being invoked until Jan 1 2018 or later if at all
Inconceivable it will be that late. I'd say 2-3 months (I think a Tory leader would come under immense pressure to do it at once, on the basis that what type of negotiated settlement they want will form part of their pitch to the party)
Loving the Liberal guy on ABC news feed. When I first started watching it an hour ago he was smug and certain of winning. Now, he's starting to sound desperate.
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
Some people are. But you surely would not say that 100% of the people who voted Leave voted for the entirety of that programme. We don't know how many did. Even if many did, it still wouldn't mean 52% of people voted for it, particularly since we were told many times too that VoteLeave was not the only Leave campaign, and they didn't all agree, even though VoteLeave was the main one.
Personally I never liked several parts of the Leave platform, particularly around immigration, and as I'm not a Tory I'm not worried about them bleeding support to UKIP if they go for a less strict version of Leave either. And on the principle of governing for everyone in the country, given 48% were for Remain and 52% for Leave, Leave + FOM fits that, possibly.
I don't understand the problem. If people really don't want FOM they can hope a Leaver who advocates that wins, or vote for a party that will do it later. But there is no proven popular will for specific elements of the VoteLeave programme. I highly suspect FOM was one of the more popular parts, admittedly.
People are reinterpreting the referendum result on an a la carte basis. But there was in fact a clear statement what the official campaign were looking for.
People are reinterpreting the referendum result on an a la carte basis. But there was in fact a clear statement what the official campaign were looking for. It is now being ignored.
And whenever I point that out, Leavers get irate with me. It is all very odd. It is as if there was a deliberate attempt to dupe the British public and now we're supposed not to notice.
I'm not irate with you - anyone who pretended before the vote that the VoteLeave prospectus would be and had to be implemented to the letter, be they from Remain or Leave, is simply incorrect about how our system works, and if they suggested definitive policy changes would happen they deserve criticism for that now as they know that was not certain whoever won.
There was a clear statement about what the main campaign was looking for. If they want to implement that in full, people now need to vote for a party that promises to implement it in full. Since there isn't an election yet, people wanting that programme in full need to support the Tory candidate who promises to implement it in full.
They might well win on that basis. My objection is to anyone claiming the people will have been ignored if they don't. But the fact is the question was just on leaving, not with what type of leave people wanted. There is no other option but for the government to interpret the best option from that.
Leaving is happening, that was the sole indisputable message of the vote. Without knowing how effective the campaigns were, which bits resonated most is not indisputable. Therefore interpreting the vote is not only permissable but obligatory.
Why you get snippy about that I do not know - I thought it was accepted we live in a representative democracy, and we just gave our representatives a statement of 'Leave, and here are some reasons we want to leave' with a thousand different views on the latter.
We might get the full VoteLeave programme. Anyone claiming betrayal for not getting it would be wrong.
I'm beginning to think an election might be a good idea after all, so the various options for leave are put to the test. Because despite your insistence, the people have not actually indicated which option they would prefer. If they don't want the government to a la carte this, then an election is needed to choose.
I'm old fashioned enough to believe that there should at least be an attempt to implement a manifesto after an election victory. Not even to try is a fraud on the voters.
Inconceivable it will be that late. I'd say 2-3 months (I think a Tory leader would come under immense pressure to do it at once, on the basis that what type of negotiated settlement they want will form part of their pitch to the party)
@MSmithsonPB: After reading this I've just bet at 11/4 that Article 50 won't be invoked, if at all, until 2018 or later https://t.co/yNhxid1h6S
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Er, but she 'did'. 1984-5 wasn't the first miners strike. It was just that that was the one she had prepared for and was able to stand her ground.
People still wear their Maggie rose tinted fantasy glasses.
Good morning all.
Maggie didn't win the miner's strike. Scargill lost it. He took his members out at a time when UK coal stocks were (iirc) at an historical high.
I don't particularly want a coronation, but I cannot see anyone but May being the right choice. The country is essentially going to war, and (channeling the Godfather here), Leadsom is not a wartime consigliere.
Can I ask what was it that persuaded you to vote leave ?
The inexorable move toward a United States of Europe, and the fundamental inability of the EU to change in any meaningful way because there was no genuine appetite for it (as shown in talk of populist 'contagions' and that we should be lucky to get what we had in Cameron's deal).
It is a shame it may only gain the ability to change now we are leaving - before then, they said the words occasionally, but clearly had no will to change. And if things go to hell, I'll be making tearful apologies for being an idiot in 9-12 months no doubt. Too early to tell one way or another, as the start would always be rocky.
And now I do have to go - if I miss Mr Meeks' dismissal of my argument that VoteLeave does not equal all Leave voters and so while providing a steer does not provide an obligation to follow their proposed platform (even if people on both sides are wrong that it does), I'm sure it was a devastating and not at all condescending critique of my position, and I salute his victory over me. It's amazing that 'reinterpreting' the result is a terrible thing, when the fact is given the question was straight leave/remain and there were many arguments for leaving and remaining, that interpreting in the first place is essential.
Can't find the clip but I've posted a link to a book with the details in. If you google "Butler Powell gun bang" you get two or three references to it.
I've been rather busy this week and haven't been able to keep in touch with the news.
So would PBers be kind enough to give me a brief update on:
1) What tax rises and spending cuts were in Osborne's promised Emergency Budget.
2) How far the stock market has crashed. I assume from the BBC reports that the FTSE100 is now below 5,000 maybe even below 4,000.
FTSE100 is denominated in sterling, which is down almost 10 per cent versus the euro since people thought REMAIN would win, never mind the dollar.
So what if its denominated in Sterling.
If I buy shares I pay in Sterling, if I sell shares I get paid in Sterling.
My pay is denominated in Sterling as are the things I spend it on.
I've never noticed this obsession with converting Sterling denominated items into foreign currencies before this week.
If AstraZeneca or Standard Chartered earns money, they probably don't get paid in sterling.
If you spend money on things that come from places that aren't the UK, your supplier has to make up the difference between the value of GBP on 23 June and now. That will eventually affect you, but it may take longer than 8 days.
The idea that staying in EFTA/EEA means no change to freedom of movement is horlicks:
"It is possible to impose restrictions on immigration whilst remaining in the European Economic Area. Liechtenstein, an EEA member with less potential influence than Britain, continues to use clauses in the EEA agreement to restrict the movement of persons. Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads: ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.’ The restrictions used by Liechtenstein are further reinforced by Protocol 15 (Article 5 – 7) of the EEA agreement. This allows Liechtenstein to keep specific restrictions on the free movement of people. These have been kept in place by what is known as the EEA Council.[1]
There will also be greater latitude to restrict non-British EU citizen’s access to benefits and to deny residency to those who are deemed to not have sufficient resources to support themselves. The current debate in Britain on immigration largely ignores the role of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention. Article 3 of the Convention (inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and Article 8 (private and family life, his home and his correspondence) would also be relevant to the issue of immigration. These two article are often taken together; especially in cases of repatriation. ...
There is already a great deal of flexibility in the EEA agreement. This goes beyond the ability to restrict immigration and opt-out of areas of EEA rules. Iceland even unilaterally imposed capital controls after its financial crash in 2008. This is permitted within the EEA safeguards Article 112.[2] There is also no enforcement mechanism to prevent this from happening even if such flexibility was not contained within the EEA. Whist this paper does not advocate such a policy it shows that radical steps that run contrary, even to the four freedoms of the EEA, can be implemented.....
the Treaty allows restrictions to be placed on the right of free movement and residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Article 7, 1 b) (b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State.[3] No right is absolute, and neither is freedom of movement within the EEA. What is more, EEA rules only apply to EFTA nations after they have assessed the relevant legislation and applied it according to their own interpretation of what freedom of movement means.
Can I ask what was it that persuaded you to vote leave ?
The inexorable move toward a United States of Europe, and the fundamental inability of the EU to change in any meaningful way because there was no genuine appetite for it (as shown in talk of populist 'contagions' and that we should be lucky to get what we had in Cameron's deal).
It is a shame it may only gain the ability to change now we are leaving - before then, they said the words occasionally, but clearly had no will to change.
And now I do have to go - if I miss Mr Meeks' dismissal of my argument that VoteLeave does not equal all Leave voters and so while providing a steer does not provide an obligation to follow their proposed platform (even if people on both sides are wrong that it does), I'm sure it was a devastating and not at all condescending critique of my position, and I salute his victory over me.
Thanks - good to know why people here voted to leave.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Er, but she 'did'. 1984-5 wasn't the first miners strike. It was just that that was the one she had prepared for and was able to stand her ground.
People still wear their Maggie rose tinted fantasy glasses.
Good morning all.
Maggie didn't win the miner's strike. Scargill lost it. He took his members out at a time when UK coal stocks were (iirc) at an historical high.
I don't particularly want a coronation, but I cannot see anyone but May being the right choice. The country is essentially going to war, and (channeling the Godfather here), Leadsom is not a wartime consigliere.
But why were coal stocks at an historical high? I thought it was deliberate government policy to stockpile coal in preparation for the next conflict?
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
To be fair Mr Gove did expound on large areas of this yesterday for people with stamina. I am particularly looking forward to the extra £100 million per week for the NHS, which is sorely needed.
Is tho? Last term an extra £12bn was spent on it and this term an extra £ 8bn is going to be spent this term plus if another £5bn is spent because of Leaves victory then that's a hell of a lot of extra spending. And somehow some trusts still go into deficit? Wtf?!? I think its time to stop bailing out these trusts and tell to find savings within their given budgets. Will be unpopular but we are still spending way beyond our means.
It is an inefficient money pit, run badly for the benefits of the staff and not the customers who pay for their largesse. There is no such thing as a poor doctor , the worst off are rolling in it. High time it was run the way it should be , a 24 hour service which the customers are paying for but not receiving.
People are reinterpreting the referendum result on an a la carte basis. But there was in fact a clear statement what the official campaign were looking for. It is now being ignored.
And whenever I point that out, Leavers get irate with me. It is all very odd. It is as if there was a deliberate attempt to dupe the British public and now we're supposed not to notice.
I'm not irate with you - anyone who pretended before the vote that the VoteLeave prospectus would be and had to be implemented to the letter, be they from Remain or Leave, is simply incorrect about how our system works, and if they suggested definitive policy changes would happen they deserve criticism for that now as they know that was not certain whoever won.
There was a clear statement about what the main campaign was looking for. If they want to implement that in full, people now need to vote for a party that promises to implement it in full. Since there isn't an election yet, people wanting that programme in full need to support the Tory candidate who promises to implement it in full.
They might well win on that basis. My objection is to anyone claiming the people will have been ignored if they don't. But the fact is the question was just on leaving, not with what type of leave people wanted. There is no other option but for the government to interpret the best option from that.
Leaving is happening, that was the sole indisputable message of the vote. Without knowing how effective the campaigns were, which bits resonated most is not indisputable. Therefore interpreting the vote is not only permissable but obligatory.
Why you get snippy about that I do not know - I thought it was accepted we live in a representative democracy, and we just gave our representatives a statement of 'Leave, and here are some reasons we want to leave' with a thousand different views on the latter.
We might get the full VoteLeave programme. Anyone claiming betrayal for not getting it would be wrong.
I'm beginning to think an election might be a good idea after all, so the various options for leave are put to the test. Because despite your insistence, the people have not actually indicated which option they would prefer. If they don't want the government to a la carte this, then an election is needed to choose.
I'm old fashioned enough to believe that there should at least be an attempt to implement a manifesto after an election victory. Not even to try is a fraud on the voters.
That is valid iff an election elects a government.
We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think. Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
Bar gay marriage and a surprising rise in his majority - what's Cameron's legacy post Brexit? He helped improve the number of kids getting adopted? I liked him for ages, but when I strip away his frontman abilities, where's the meat? Blair did huge damage in the long term - and I regret ever voting for him.
Cameron has a tragic legacy, lots of promise and yet somehow he let it all slip through his fingers.
Yep, that's pretty much how I see it ..... all rather disappointing in the end, but by no means a disaster.
Comments
L/NP 54 ALP 47 Others 5
May has always come across as hard and cool - her space-age dress sense just emphasises it. This has a certain appeal, I prefer Leadsom's warmer softer manner.
Attainder is a specific Act of Parliament (I don't think you even get to make representations in your own defence - it's not a court case). And it's far nastier - all your worldly goods are forfeited and you (and your children) are stripped of all titles, offices and roles.
I believe the last usage was Edward Fitzgerald after the 1798 rebellion. Warren Hastings was impeached in 1788, while Meville was acquitted in 1806.
There is a good argument to be made that many people do indeed want no FOM at all. But is simply not the case that that is what people voted for, since the question was Leave and no other details, so we cannot know how firm people are on that question, for how many is it critical and for how many is it an acceptable thing to sacrifice.
Lacking proof of how many people voted on the basis of FOM, the government has a duty to seek the best deal it thinks the country can get and it might decide that includes FOM, it might not, and there is no democratic mandate to say they shouldn't do that. Indeed, given some leavers want that and many (though not all) remainers will, it could be counter argued that in the absence of FOM being part of the official question, then the most democratic solution may well be a compromise which includes leave but FOM.
Any option which includes FOM will be politically riotous. Many would argue, for different reasons, that it is in any case a bad idea. But unless it is put up as official party policy, opposed by a different leave (or rejoin) policy, and loses at an election, implementing it would not be going against what the public instructed, even if many of the public will be very disappointed indeed.
If we needed to know exactly which bits of a manifesto/which part of the campaign people care about when voting, we'd need a box on the ballots for people to explain their vote to let the winner know what parts have a mandate.
"Voted Tory but only as I hate Corbyn - so don't swing too hard right"
"Voted Remain, but only due to economic fear - no joining the Euro!"
It would probably delay the count somewhat.
If there's no contest soon we are all going to end up with our stake money tied up for some considerable time - most likely on losers!
L/NP 52 ALP 48 Others 5
And a good day to all, the sun is finally out, time to enjoy it.
ISTR these were the reasons we launched our few rockets from Woomera: we could launch eastwards because there were large areas of nothing for debris to fall in (and the same with Russia).
I think. Orbital mechanics is hardly my strong suit!
Suborbital flights means we're just investing millions for Branson's benefit.
It's stretched my braincells trying to keep up with the tsunami of no-names resigning/joining Corbyn's cabinet. Some who've been MPs for a decade or more have been mentioned for the first time on PB.
L/NP 52 ALP 50 Others 5
Justine Greening:
There is no province called Davao del Norte in Indonesia.
Or do the coalition clean up in the West?
So the difference is impeachment is a trial by the House, attainder is you being declared guilty without a trial by the will of the house?
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june
Since the referendum, Leavers have become very tetchy about even discussing its implementation. But this is what people voted for. Why is no one advocating that it be delivered?
"But two methodological steps were wrong – and caused us to overstate support for remaining in the EU by over 6%. These were the ways that we tried to take account of how undecided voters would end up voting, and the way that we estimated the likelihood to vote of different groups."
"Past elections and referendums have proved that estimating turnout, and who will actually vote, on the basis only of how likely respondents say they are to vote, is highly prone to error"
http://www.populus.co.uk/2016/06/populus-published-poll/
"Having now studied turnout at the referendum and compared it to our analysis of the demographic composition of the voting electorate at previous referendums and general elections, we have concluded that turnout patterns are so different that a demographically based propensity-to-vote model is unlikely ever to produce an accurate picture of turnout other than by sheer luck."
Bloody hell, the pitch is greener that Caroline Lucas's manifesto !!
I don't think she'll settle for a bad deal, actually. Yes, on balance she said she was for remain, but she's always had a very strong Eurosceptic streak. Some have even suggested that deep down she was a leaver but for party loyalty (and quite possibly positioning) she thought it best to stick with Cameron but keep her head down. That was rather astute.
I think she'll easily control the party. She's quiet, safe, managerial, disciplined.
Edited extra bit: suspension failure caused the crash.
They think she'll water it all down and give them the closest thing to the status quo possible.
L/NP 54 ALP 53 Others 4
For orbital launches, once SpaceX starts re-using recovered first stages... well that is the one to beat.
Yes, the big issue is flying east. Generally, bombing France and Germany is not considered a commercially viable idea these days... And it will be a long, long time before even a recoverable vehicle will be allowed to fly over populated areas.
I like Greening. I wonder if it's time for her to return to a more prominent role in the new cabinet.
Hogg = hog = pig
It was meant to be fairly clear?
Personally I never liked several parts of the Leave platform, particularly around immigration, and as I'm not a Tory I'm not worried about them bleeding support to UKIP if they go for a less strict version of Leave either. And on the principle of governing for everyone in the country, given 48% were for Remain and 52% for Leave, Leave + FOM fits that, possibly.
I don't understand the problem. If people really don't want FOM they can hope a Leaver who advocates that wins, or vote for a party that will do it later. But there is no proven popular will for specific elements of the VoteLeave programme.
I highly suspect FOM was one of the more popular parts, admittedly. The whole platform might, on balance, be more popular than alternatives. But it is simply untrue for people to say, whether remainers or leavers, that the country voted for that specific policy platform. Even if there had been only one leave campaign, like it was a single party option, that would be questionable. With other ones existing, and people who support bits and not others, it is risible to suggest that so definitively
Mr Meeks, why not take the weekend off and get used to the fact that your side lost and take a look at why your predictions on here of 60% REMAIN were so wrong. You seem to be in the Anger stage of suffering a death in the family.
L/NP 55 ALP 55 Others 4
And whenever I point that out, Leavers get irate with me. It is all very odd. It is as if there was a deliberate attempt to dupe the British public and now we're supposed not to notice.
There was a mesmerizing clip in a TV programme about the 60s in which Powell describes the critical meeting with RAB, which culminates in the latter asking whether the metaphorical gun (ie refusal to serve under Home) Powell, Iain Macleaod and the others were proferring would hurt anyone. "Yes, RAB, it will indeed hurt". 'Oh, really, I'm not so sure about this...."
I wonder if that clip is out there.
Actually there is going to be a recession sooner or later - and probably sooner at that.
But that's wont be to do with Brexit but because of the economic cycle and the fundamentally unbalanced nature of the UK economy - as evidenced yet again by last week's ONS Economic Accounts.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-changes-outlooks-on-52-UK-sub-sovereigns-to-negative--PR_350948
I think its time to stop bailing out these trusts and tell to find savings within their given budgets. Will be unpopular but we are still spending way beyond our means.
Certainly a lot more exciting than the UK counts.
L/NP 58 ALP 56 Others 4
"To some extent this poll of members is beside the point. There is a good chance that the next Labour leadership election will not be decided by members at all. Last time, Jeremy won with 250,000 votes. Next time, I would not be surprised if we replicated what happened recently in France and Italy where more than 2 million people voted for the leader of each country’s socialist party."
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/02/10-tips-for-the-tory-leadership-contest/#vanilla-comments
The first problem is having failed to define Leave during the campaign, they are now stuck with whether the leadership options are the "right sort" of leavers. Gove knifed Boris because he lacked idealogical purity, and stabbed himself with the same knife.
Secondly, the contradictory claims of the campaign will haunt Leavers to their political graves.
If Leadsom wins, the first and only question at PMQs for ever will be "Where is my £350?" She can't stand at the despatch box as First Lord of the Treasury and say "Bazinga"
May will do what it right for the country, and party, without any of that baggage.
Also
@theobertram: To win an election in 3 months: May
To win a general election in 2020, maybe 2025: Crabb
To risk losing: Gove, Leadsom
To lose: Fox
If, in 3 months, the economic downsides of Brexit are beginning to bite, May could go to the country on an "economic stability" platform and win at a landslide. She might even be able to jettison some of the headbangers at the same time. Something along the lines of sign up to this or lose the whip.
If Leadsom is in charge and the economy tanks, she, and the party and Brexit as an idea, are toxic for years.
There was a clear statement about what the main campaign was looking for. If they want to implement that in full, people now need to vote for a party that promises to implement it in full. Since there isn't an election yet, people wanting that programme in full need to support the Tory candidate who promises to implement it in full.
They might well win on that basis. My objection is to anyone claiming the people will have been ignored if they don't. But the fact is the question was just on leaving, not with what type of leave people wanted. There is no other option but for the government to interpret the best option from that.
Leaving is happening, that was the sole indisputable message of the vote. Without knowing how effective the campaigns were, which bits resonated most is not indisputable. Therefore interpreting the vote is not only permissable but obligatory.
Why you get snippy about that I do not know - I thought it was accepted we live in a representative democracy, and we just gave our representatives a statement of 'Leave, and here are some reasons we want to leave' with a thousand different views on the latter.
We might get the full VoteLeave programme. Anyone claiming betrayal for not getting it would be wrong.
I'm beginning to think an election might be a good idea after all, so the various options for leave are put to the test. Because despite your insistence, the people have not actually indicated which option they would prefer. If they don't want the government to a la carte this, then an election is needed to choose.
@MSmithsonPB: .@benrathe Stan James is offering 11/4 on Article 50 not being invoked until Jan 1 2018 or later if at all
This is definitely the way to do counts.
I wonder if that clip is out there.
Can't find the clip but I've posted a link to a book with the details in. If you google "Butler Powell gun bang" you get two or three references to it.
If I buy shares I pay in Sterling, if I sell shares I get paid in Sterling.
My pay is denominated in Sterling as are the things I spend it on.
I've never noticed this obsession with converting Sterling denominated items into foreign currencies before this week.
Maggie didn't win the miner's strike. Scargill lost it. He took his members out at a time when UK coal stocks were (iirc) at an historical high.
I don't particularly want a coronation, but I cannot see anyone but May being the right choice. The country is essentially going to war, and (channeling the Godfather here), Leadsom is not a wartime consigliere.
They are usually made up (or twisted beyond all recognition)
Charlie Falconer resigned .... to losing "Dunny in the Outback" .... Sh*t seat though ....
It is a shame it may only gain the ability to change now we are leaving - before then, they said the words occasionally, but clearly had no will to change. And if things go to hell, I'll be making tearful apologies for being an idiot in 9-12 months no doubt. Too early to tell one way or another, as the start would always be rocky.
And now I do have to go - if I miss Mr Meeks' dismissal of my argument that VoteLeave does not equal all Leave voters and so while providing a steer does not provide an obligation to follow their proposed platform (even if people on both sides are wrong that it does), I'm sure it was a devastating and not at all condescending critique of my position, and I salute his victory over me. It's amazing that 'reinterpreting' the result is a terrible thing, when the fact is given the question was straight leave/remain and there were many arguments for leaving and remaining, that interpreting in the first place is essential.
L/NP 57
ALP 56
Others 5
Would be most entertaining if the Bexiteers don't like either pitch...
If you spend money on things that come from places that aren't the UK, your supplier has to make up the difference between the value of GBP on 23 June and now. That will eventually affect you, but it may take longer than 8 days.
"It is possible to impose restrictions on immigration whilst remaining in the European Economic Area. Liechtenstein, an EEA member with less potential influence than Britain, continues to use clauses in the EEA agreement to restrict the movement of persons. Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads: ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.’ The restrictions used by Liechtenstein are further reinforced by Protocol 15 (Article 5 – 7) of the EEA agreement. This allows Liechtenstein to keep specific restrictions on the free movement of people. These have been kept in place by what is known as the EEA Council.[1]
There will also be greater latitude to restrict non-British EU citizen’s access to benefits and to deny residency to those who are deemed to not have sufficient resources to support themselves. The current debate in Britain on immigration largely ignores the role of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention. Article 3 of the Convention (inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and Article 8 (private and family life, his home and his correspondence) would also be relevant to the issue of immigration. These two article are often taken together; especially in cases of repatriation. ...
There is already a great deal of flexibility in the EEA agreement. This goes beyond the ability to restrict immigration and opt-out of areas of EEA rules. Iceland even unilaterally imposed capital controls after its financial crash in 2008. This is permitted within the EEA safeguards Article 112.[2] There is also no enforcement mechanism to prevent this from happening even if such flexibility was not contained within the EEA. Whist this paper does not advocate such a policy it shows that radical steps that run contrary, even to the four freedoms of the EEA, can be implemented.....
the Treaty allows restrictions to be placed on the right of free movement and residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Article 7, 1 b) (b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State.[3] No right is absolute, and neither is freedom of movement within the EEA. What is more, EEA rules only apply to EFTA nations after they have assessed the relevant legislation and applied it according to their own interpretation of what freedom of movement means.
http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/some-restriction-on-free-movement-of-people-is-possible-within-the-eea-agreement/
There is no such thing as a poor doctor , the worst off are rolling in it. High time it was run the way it should be , a 24 hour service which the customers are paying for but not receiving.
Since the referendum didn't, it's invalid.
I winder of the Brexiteers would be happy with him in charge?