If Labour were to give up on "white working class Leave voters" then they are kissing goodbye to TWO THIRDS of their current seats. Not an option. And the "centrist voters who voted for Blair and then switched to Cameron" overwhelmingly voted Leave -- the Midlands bellwether seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase were among the biggest Leave landslides in the country.
The Democrats' strategy is not viable in a country which has far fewer ethnic minorities than the US, and with an electoral system which punishes parties that disproportionately piles up votes in big cities.
No they are not, 63% of Labour voters voted Remain and the white working class Leave voters would just go to UKIP not the Tories if they put immigration above all. Seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase are not going to be won back by Labour now, probably ever, seats like Enfield Southgate and Worcester where Remain won or Leave won narrowly are much better target seats for Labour if they are to win back power.
Around 10% of the population is ethnic minority now, more in Labour seats or target seats and growing. It is white middle class suburban graduates who Labour should be aiming for now, they are the types of voters who voted for Blair then went for Cameron but could be won back under the right leader and are growing as a percentage of the population, the white working class are shrinking as a percentage of the population. Labour will only win them over by out Kippering the Kippers which will only lose them the suburban middle classes, the liberal left and ethnic minorities, they are on a hiding to nothing with them
It's an interesting question which I discussed with colleagues years ago before any of the current issues arose. People tend to join Labour more or less out of solidarity with people low on the income scale, who tend to vote significantly less than others (as well as dwindling in proportion to the electorate as a whole). In ruthless electoral terms a winning strategy has to involve focusing on part of the growing middle class, just like the Democrats (who show almost no interest in the bottom end of the scale - the homeless, trailer park residents, and so on).
The problem is that if we do that then we lose the reason why we wanted to get into politics in the first place. If politics is mainly about social issues - abortion, gay marriage, and so on - or largely apolitical things like regional devolution and green energy, then I'm quite happy to let liberal conservatives do the job, with whom we largely agree (Anna Soubry is perfectly sound on those issues). And the WWC doesn't vote as a bloc - there will always be some who will vote left for economic reasons. But HYUFD is probably right about the long-term trends, so although I think we need to keep the solidarity instinct, it shouldn't be in the expectaiton of great electoral reward.
If the challenge to Jeremy Corbyn fails, Labour almost inevitably splits. So even stjohn's suggested route for David Miliband looks like a non-starter to me.
I still highly doubt (m)any of these MPs would have the guts to resign their seats and fight byelections, in order to go to a new breakaway party.
They wouldn't be required to fight by elections, but the guts point still stands.
I don't think the May team should try to block Leadsom from being on the members' ballot. We need a decisive, unifying result, and it's crucial not to have any whiff of an establishment stitch-up.
It doesn't need the May team to do anything. All it requires is enough sensible Tory MPs to outvote the nutters.
This is exactly the problem Labour had. The MPs voted for a totally unsuitable candidate none of them really wanted to appease some sense of fairness and are now completely undone, to the detriment of the country.
If you don't think Leadsom is competent, it would be a dereliction of duty to vote for her
In this case though we are talking about people not voting for the candidate they support (May) in order to vote for a candidate they don't support, to make the head to head contest easier in a runoff election.
Is it iillegitimate? No. Does it stink to high heaven? YES!
Problem is he coukd get the votes fairly and people would think it stinks, so they may as well do it if they think leadsom will be that bad.
We will soon see if any dark horse has made it through the pack this time, but whatever happens there is one crucial thought that the country and the world have to get used to: regardless of who is the next Conservative leader, we are leaving the European Union.
It is strange to have to point this out even after the referendum, but it is evidently necessary. At the weekend, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in London against the referendum result. Many more seem to think it will never be implemented. Some think a general election will overturn it. And Tony Blair has implied that if the country changes its mind we can stay in the EU after all.
As one who argued for the Remain side I hate to disillusion all these people, but there is no point living in a state of denial. On a high turnout, in a democratic society, the electorate voted to Leave.
I don't think the May team should try to block Leadsom from being on the members' ballot. We need a decisive, unifying result, and it's crucial not to have any whiff of an establishment stitch-up.
Richard or anyone. Eric Pickles on Newsnight tonight I think just stated that all 5 leadership candidates have come out against "Freedom of Movement". He didn't seem to know what he was talking about but under the scrutiny of a leadership campaign do you think May will be able to keep her options and negotiating position open re Freedom of Movement and Access to the Single Market? Leadsom has stated her position fairly unequivocally.
It's where may could come unstuck. Any nuanced position will be portrayed as being soft on FOM and even soft on Brexit.
We will soon see if any dark horse has made it through the pack this time, but whatever happens there is one crucial thought that the country and the world have to get used to: regardless of who is the next Conservative leader, we are leaving the European Union.
It is strange to have to point this out even after the referendum, but it is evidently necessary. At the weekend, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in London against the referendum result. Many more seem to think it will never be implemented. Some think a general election will overturn it. And Tony Blair has implied that if the country changes its mind we can stay in the EU after all.
As one who argued for the Remain side I hate to disillusion all these people, but there is no point living in a state of denial. On a high turnout, in a democratic society, the electorate voted to Leave.
Not sure anyone wants a general election so he's probably right there. A GE win for a 'not leaving after all' party could in theory do it, but no one but the LDs would stand on that basis, so he's right. It's just a question of when.
No they are not, 63% of Labour voters voted Remain and the white working class Leave voters would just go to UKIP not the Tories if they put immigration above all. Seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase are not going to be won back by Labour now, probably ever, seats like Enfield Southgate and Worcester where Remain won or Leave won narrowly are much better target seats for Labour if they are to win back power.
Around 10% of the population is ethnic minority now, more in Labour seats or target seats and growing. It is white middle class suburban graduates who Labour should be voting for now, they are the types of voters who voted for Blair then went for Cameron but could be won back under the right leader and are growing as a percentage of the population, the white working class are shrinking as a percentage of the population. Labour will only win them over by out Kippering the Kippers which will only lose them the suburban middle classes, the liberal left and ethnic minorities, they are on a hiding to nothing with them
Irrespective of how many Labour voters voted Remain (and I suspect 63% is a big overestimate, only made by unreliable pollsters), the actual results shows that 150 Labour seats voted LEAVE, compared to 82 that voted Remain (half of those in London). Further, 39 of Labour's top 50 target seats voted Leave, very often by huge margins:
Generally, Remain voters were metropolitan-liberal Labour voters, and very wealthy ultra-Tories from the Home Counties, who didn't even vote for Blair in 1997 (the likes of Tunbridge Wells, Guildford, Mole Valley, etc.). Aka: the safest Labour voters of all (at the moment), and the safest Tory voters of all. It's utter madness to stake an electoral strategy on them.
No, the types of seats Labour should be targeting ie like Worcester voted Leave but relatively narrowly much like the nation as a whole and for Blair then switched to Cameron. They are the seats Labour should be targeting. I would also not rule out a more moderate Labour Party even making inroads into the likes of Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, in years to come I would not be surprised to see someone like Chuka Umunna win Guildford against a Fox or Leadsom type Tory but lose Nuneaton, I think the referendum could be the start of a longterm realignment which has been in the making for some time
The centenary of the Somme isn’t many people’s idea of a good moment to promise “it will be all over by Christmas”. But Andrea Leadsom isn’t just any old person. She’s a mother. A mother with a strong interest in grandchildren. Even though she hasn’t got any yet. But she has met some and she likes them a lot.
Having won the referendum war largely thanks to the votes of the over 40s, Leadsom has suddenly developed a keen interest in children and grandchildren. At her Conservative leadership launch, her eyes moistened and her voice became breathier every time she said “children and grandchildren”. Which was about once or twice a sentence. The message: “Anyone who doesn’t have children is evil” was subliminally beamed on to the wall behind her. It’s pure coincidence that Theresa May doesn’t have children. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsom-leadership-launch-sketch-mummy-up-is-down
If Labour were No they are not, 63% of Labour voters voted Remain and the white working class Leave voters would just go to UKIP not the Tories if they put immigration above all. Seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase are not going to be won back by Labour now, probably ever, seats like Enfield Southgate and Worcester where Remain won or Leave won narrowly are much better target seats for Labour if they are to win back power.
Around 10% of the population is ethnic minority now, more in Labour seats or target seats and growing. It is white middle class suburban graduates who Labour should be aiming for now, they are the types of voters who voted for Blair then went for Cameron but could be won back under the right leader and are growing as a percentage of the population, the white working class are shrinking as a percentage of the population. Labour will only win them over by out Kippering the Kippers which will only lose them the suburban middle classes, the liberal left and ethnic minorities, they are on a hiding to nothing with them
It's an interesting question which I discussed with colleagues years ago before any of the current issues arose. People tend to join Labour more or less out of solidarity with people low on the income scale, who tend to vote significantly less than others (as well as dwindling in proportion to the electorate as a whole). In ruthless electoral terms a winning strategy has to involve focusing on part of the growing middle class, just like the Democrats (who show almost no interest in the bottom end of the scale - the homeless, trailer park residents, and so on).
The problem is that if we do that then we lose the reason why we wanted to get into politics in the first place. If politics is mainly about social issues - abortion, gay marriage, and so on - or largely apolitical things like regional devolution and green energy, then I'm quite happy to let liberal conservatives do the job, with whom we largely agree (Anna Soubry is perfectly sound on those issues). And the WWC doesn't vote as a bloc - there will always be some who will vote left for economic reasons. But HYUFD is probably right about the long-term trends, so although I think we need to keep the solidarity instinct, it shouldn't be in the expectaiton of great electoral reward.
I agree Nick, obviously there will be some in the working class who will still vote Labour for economic reasons and what they see as a more social justice approach from the left but those of the white working class who put cultural factors and anti immigation rhetoric above all are not going to return to Labour, probably ever, they will be as tribal UKIP or even Tory as they once were tribal Labour
Mrs Leadsom struggles to attract Tories who voted Remain in the EU referendum, with only 4 per cent giving their support. By contrast 49 per cent of Leave supporters would back Mrs May in this contest. Mrs May also beats Mr Gove by 51 points, Liam Fox by 50 points and Stephen Crabb by 63 points. Mrs Leadsom would beat Mr Gove by 33 points in the final round.
No, the types of seats Labour should be targeting ie like Worcester voted Leave but relatively narrowly much like the nation as a whole and for Blair then switched to Cameron. They are the seats Labour should be targeting. I would also not rule out a more moderate Labour Party even making inroads into the likes of Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, in years to come I would not be surprised to see someone like Chuka Umunna win Guildford against a Fox or Leadsom type Tory but lose Nuneaton, I think the referendum could be the start of a longterm realignment which has been in the making for some time
Eh? How exactly is basing an electoral strategy on winning Remain voters going to help Labour win Worcester, a place where.....Leave won the referendum comfortably, 8% ahead of Remain?
If you seriously think ANY Labour leader could be competitive in Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, then I'll happily have some of what you're smoking! Mr & Mrs Tunbridge Wells have not overnight become Guardian-readers happy with high levels of immigration -- they only voted Remain because they were in the minority of Brits who thought Brexit would harm THEIR OWN wallets (possibly because many of them worked for some of the multinationals who were threatening to leave the country), and their fear of that outweighed their dislike of immigration and of "our laws being made in Brussels".
Giving up on most current Labour seats, and most even semi-realistic target seats, all for some pipe dream of winning over Tory seats which stayed blue even in 1997, really is the definition of insanity.
In ruthless electoral terms a winning strategy has to involve focusing on part of the growing middle class, just like the Democrats (who show almost no interest in the bottom end of the scale - the homeless, trailer park residents, and so on).
But the thing is, the middle-class voters we're mostly talking about (i.e. the lower middle class , or the "aspirational" voters or "strivers" in the Westminster jargon) seem just as furious with the status quo as anyone else. Again, the evidence of that is in that the traditional swing seats (Labour in 1997, Tory in 2010) mostly went Leave, often overwhelmingly. The Nuneatons of the country roundly ignored what the conventional "economic credibility" told them to do, and what the CBI lobby were calling for, and decided that the supposed chaos was worth risking in order to get the dramatic change they wanted.
There was a passage missing from Andrea Leadsom’s pitch for the leadership of the Conservative party: an apology to the governor of the Bank of England, or, failing that, a retreat from the nasty attack on his integrity during the EU referendum campaign.
Leadsom was a leader of the leave camp’s attempt to portray Mark Carney as chancellor George Osborne’s stooge. ......
To fair-minded observers, Leadsom’s claim was utter nonsense......
Other prominent Brexiters have sought to build bridges. Boris Johnson, in his infamous Telegraph article, got one thing right: he said Carney was doing a “superb job”. Michael Gove, launching his bid for leadership, endorsed the “wise action” taken by the governor after the vote.....
..... There are only two explanations. She may lack the experience or humility to admit she went too far during the referendum campaign. Or she still believes what she said about the governor abusing his office. Either version would be alarming in a candidate to be prime minister.
No, the types of seats Labour should be targeting ie like Worcester voted Leave but relatively narrowly much like the nation as a whole and for Blair then switched to Cameron. They are the seats Labour should be targeting. I would also not rule out a more moderate Labour Party even making inroads into the likes of Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, in years to come I would not be surprised to see someone like Chuka Umunna win Guildford against a Fox or Leadsom type Tory but lose Nuneaton, I think the referendum could be the start of a longterm realignment which has been in the making for some time
Eh? How exactly is basing an electoral strategy on winning Remain voters going to help Labour win Worcester, a place where.....Leave won the referendum comfortably, 8% ahead of Remain?
If you seriously think ANY Labour leader could be competitive in Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, then I'll happily have some of what you're smoking! Mr & Mrs Tunbridge Wells have not overnight become Guardian-readers happy with high levels of immigration -- they only voted Remain because they were in the minority of Brits who thought Brexit would harm THEIR OWN wallets (possibly because many of them worked for some of the multinationals who were threatening to leave the country), and their fear of that outweighed their dislike of immigration and of "our laws being made in Brussels".
Giving up on most current Labour seats, and most even semi-realistic target seats, all for some pipe dream of winning over Tory seats which stayed blue even in 1997, really is the definition of insanity.
Leave won England and Wales by 8% so if Labour is to win a general election it has to win Worcester and I did not say just Remain voters I said some of the more moderate suburban middle class Leave voters who ensured Leave won but could have been persuaded for Remain, the Leave diehards are not the types Labour should be targeting. There are several wards in Tunbridge Wells which had Labour councillors, I know as I spent my youth there, Guildford voted LD in 2001 and with the LDs now decimated Labour could win there instead, they were only 3% behind the LDs in 2015. Areas like Guildford are relatively cosmopolitan and liberal, they could vote for a fiscally centrist, social liberal like Umunna over a Fox or Leadson.
Tory seats like Worcester and Enfield Southgate, may I remind you, went for Blair in 1997 and 2001 and Tory in 1992 and are moving towards the party demographically, or at least a more centrist version of it, they are the seats Labour should now be focusing on, working class seats like Nuneaton which voted Labour even in 1992 are now much more conservative and moving away from the party
No, the types of seats Labour should be targeting ie like Worcester voted Leave but relatively narrowly much like the nation as a whole and for Blair then switched to Cameron. They are the seats Labour should be targeting. I would also not rule out a more moderate Labour Party even making inroads into the likes of Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, in years to come I would not be surprised to see someone like Chuka Umunna win Guildford against a Fox or Leadsom type Tory but lose Nuneaton, I think the referendum could be the start of a longterm realignment which has been in the making for some time
Eh? How exactly is basing an electoral strategy on winning Remain voters going to help Labour win Worcester, a place where.....Leave won the referendum comfortably, 8% ahead of Remain?
If you seriously think ANY Labour leader could be competitive in Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, then I'll happily have some of what you're smoking! Mr & Mrs Tunbridge Wells have not overnight become Guardian-readers happy with high levels of immigration -- they only voted Remain because they were in the minority of Brits who thought Brexit would harm THEIR OWN wallets (possibly because many of them worked for some of the multinationals who were threatening to leave the country), and their fear of that outweighed their dislike of immigration and of "our laws being made in Brussels".
Giving up on most current Labour seats, and most even semi-realistic target seats, all for some pipe dream of winning over Tory seats which stayed blue even in 1997, really is the definition of insanity.
Leave won England and Wales by 8% so if Labour is to win a general election it has to win Worcester
Yes, indeed -- Leave won by 8%, therefore Labour simply needs to win over huge chunks of the Leave vote to win an election, and to win Worcester. There is no alternative, especially when so much of the Remain vote are dyed-in-the-wool Tories who didn't even vote for Blair.
Mrs Leadsom struggles to attract Tories who voted Remain in the EU referendum, with only 4 per cent giving their support. By contrast 49 per cent of Leave supporters would back Mrs May in this contest. Mrs May also beats Mr Gove by 51 points, Liam Fox by 50 points and Stephen Crabb by 63 points. Mrs Leadsom would beat Mr Gove by 33 points in the final round.
Two MPs spoke up for Brits abroad in the HoC yesterday:
Damien Green (Con) I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House wants to see no disadvantage given either to EU citizens living in this country or to UK citizens living in other European countries. I detect the faint whiff of synthetic indignation over this entire urgent question process. What judgment has the Minister made about the best way to protect the interests of the more than 1 million British citizens living, and in many cases working, in other EU countries, so that no one is disadvantaged at the end of this process?
Mike Gapes (Lab) My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) led the campaign that got us into this mess. May I take up with the Minister something he said about the British people living in other European countries? I declare an interest as president of Labour International. We have heard from lots of people who live in Spain and elsewhere who are very concerned about their future. Can the Minister end the uncertainty for those British people—many of whom could not vote in the referendum because they have been abroad for longer than 15 years—that they will not be forced out of Spain, France or elsewhere, by ensuring that the British Government make a quick, early statement on security for citizens of those countries here?
In ruthless electoral terms a winning strategy has to involve focusing on part of the growing middle class, just like the Democrats (who show almost no interest in the bottom end of the scale - the homeless, trailer park residents, and so on).
But the thing is, the middle-class voters we're mostly talking about (i.e. the lower middle class , or the "aspirational" voters or "strivers" in the Westminster jargon) seem just as furious with the status quo as anyone else. Again, the evidence of that is in that the traditional swing seats (Labour in 1997, Tory in 2010) mostly went Leave, often overwhelmingly. The Nuneatons of the country roundly ignored what the conventional "economic credibility" told them to do, and what the CBI lobby were calling for, and decided that the supposed chaos was worth risking in order to get the dramatic change they wanted.
The lower middle class, skilled working class voters you are talking about tend to be non graduates, older and live in places like Blackpool and Nuneaton and Great Yarmouth, socially conservative and economically not particularly well off, such seats are moving away from Labour and are more Tory relative to 1992 and 1997 and even more UKIP and voted strongly for Leave. Seats like Worcester and Enfield Southgate or Reading East or Battersea, all also in Labour's top 100 target seats by contrast are filled with graduates, who are younger and more socially liberal and relatively prosperous, they are more Labour inclined now, certainly compared to 1992 and voted either Remain or narrowly for Leave and are the seats Labour should be focusing on. Of course they need a more centrist, electable leader to do so but if Labour are to win again it is seats like the latter three which will be the backbone of a victory.
Mrs Leadsom struggles to attract Tories who voted Remain in the EU referendum, with only 4 per cent giving their support. By contrast 49 per cent of Leave supporters would back Mrs May in this contest. Mrs May also beats Mr Gove by 51 points, Liam Fox by 50 points and Stephen Crabb by 63 points. Mrs Leadsom would beat Mr Gove by 33 points in the final round.
If MPs eliminate Leadsom, it's over.
Optimist!
Sadly it won't be.
As we see on here LEAVErs bottomless capacity for detecting plots and anticipating betrayal will be well nurtured over the coming years as LEAVE's multiple, mutually exclusive, promises prove undeliverable.
I hope May wins.
I hope she appoints Leadsom to a prominent position in the BREXIT negotiations.
I expect at some point Leadsom to resign over her own failure to deliver what cannot be delivered, blaming May, and anyone but herself, as she goes......
Meanwhile Gove will be mouldering on the back benches and Boris TV career in America will be going from strength to strength.....
No, the types of seats Labour should be targeting ie like Worcester voted Leave but relatively narrowly much like the nation as a whole and for Blair then switched to Cameron. They are the seats Labour should be targeting. I would also not rule out a more moderate Labour Party even making inroads into the likes of Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, in years to come I would not be surprised to see someone like Chuka Umunna win Guildford against a Fox or Leadsom type Tory but lose Nuneaton, I think the referendum could be the start of a longterm realignment which has been in the making for some time
Eh? How exactly is basing an electoral strategy on winning Remain voters going to help Labour win Worcester, a place where.....Leave won the referendum comfortably, 8% ahead of Remain?
If you seriously think ANY Labour leader could be competitive in Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, then I'll happily have some of what you're smoking! Mr & Mrs Tunbridge Wells have not overnight become Guardian-readers happy with high levels of immigration -- they only voted Remain because they were in the minority of Brits who thought Brexit would harm THEIR OWN wallets (possibly because many of them worked for some of the multinationals who were threatening to leave the country), and their fear of that outweighed their dislike of immigration and of "our laws being made in Brussels".
Giving up on most current Labour seats, and most even semi-realistic target seats, all for some pipe dream of winning over Tory seats which stayed blue even in 1997, really is the definition of insanity.
Leave won England and Wales by 8% so if Labour is to win a general election it has to win Worcester
Yes, indeed -- Leave won by 8%, therefore Labour simply needs to win over huge chunks of the Leave vote to win an election, and to win Worcester. There is no alternative, especially when so much of the Remain vote are dyed-in-the-wool Tories who didn't even vote for Blair.
Not huge chunks at all, if it converted 5% of Leave voters ie suburban, educated Leave voters who could have been persuaded to vote Remain if it had made a better case and probably voted for Cameron and Blair before him then Labour would win Worcester and England and Wales.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
I wonder if they could come second in 2020. Be the SNP of England and Wales.
This is their moment. If they select the right leader, with working class appeal, and working-class-friendly policies, they could supplant Labour.
I think
Completely disagree. Labour are constitutionally incapable of following their working class, lower mi If I was a white person in Rotherham, or Walsall, or Macclesfield, or Plymouth, why the holy F should I vote for a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn OR Chuka Umunna?
Labour now might as well give up on white working class anti immigration Leave voters, they are lost for them as such voters are lost for the Democrats in the US and have been since Bill Clinton's minorities and centrist voters who
If Labour were to give up on "white working class Leave voters" then they are kissing goodbye to TWO THIRDS of their current seats. Not an option. And the "centrist voters who voted for Blair and then switched to Cameron" overwhelmingly voted Leave -- the Midlands bellwether seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase were among the biggest Leave landslides in the country.
The Democrats' strategy is not viable in a country which has far fewer ethnic minorities than the US, and with an electoral system which punishes parties that disproportionately piles up votes in big cities.
No they are not, 63% of Labour voters voted Remain and the white working class Leave voters would just go to UKIP not the Tories if they put immigration above all. Seats like Nuneaton and Cannock Chase are not going to be won back by Labour now, probably ever, seats like Enfield Southgate and Worcester where Remain won or Leave won narrowly are much better target seats for Labour if they are to win back power.
Around 10% of the population is ethnic minority now, more in Labour seats or target seats and growing. It is white middle class suburban graduates who Labour should be aiming for now, they are the types of voters who voted for Blair then went for Cameron but could be won back under the right leader and are growing as a percentage of the population, the white working class are shrinking as a percentage of the population. Labour will only win them over by out Kippering the Kippers which will only lose them the suburban middle classes, the liberal left and ethnic minorities, they are on a hiding to nothing with them
I find it hard to envisage a path to victory for Labour that doesn't run through seats like Cannock Chase, Great Yarmouth, Nuneaton, or the Thames Estuary. They'd have to make enormous inroads into historic Conservative territory to compensate.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
Given so much of the VoteLEAVE campaign was dedicated to immigration - why are you surprised?
I'll believe it when I see it, until then I expect it is more posturing, their tribal loyalty and fear of failure will keep them in situ.
As for May, she should win against any of the current candidates. But how angry can more strident leavers be made, and how much will she be damaged before the ballots go out, and how much will Leadsome impress/underwhelm at the same time?
I think that Isabel Hardman got it right on a Skynews debate with Sam Coates and Polly Toynbee. "No one wants to leave the Labour brand despite the fact its become more toxic over the last few years. There are still a block of voters who will vote Labour, and as Polly says, to create another party and another brand is hugely difficult. And the fight just now is as much about who keeps the Labour brand, the Corbynites or the moderates or what every you want to call them."
If the Conservative Leadership contest has told anything so far, apart from May becoming the 'safe' and 'lets hang onto nanny's apron' candidate. Lets just remember that the strident leavers didn't outnumber the Remainers in the Parliamentary party, and I suspect that they will be drowned out by a demand for some stability and unity within the party in the hope of reaching to the wider electorate.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
Given so much of the VoteLEAVE campaign was dedicated to immigration - why are you surprised?
I'm not surprised that it's doing something stupid. I'm disappointed.
Isn't the function of the Conservative party to be for wealth creation, instead of wealth destruction?
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
Given so much of the VoteLEAVE campaign was dedicated to immigration - why are you surprised?
I'm not surprised that it's doing something stupid. I'm disappointed.
Isn't the function of the Conservative party to be for wealth creation, instead of wealth destruction?
It is.
Unfortunately key figures in the Conservative Party just campaigned for - and won - a referendum which featured control of immigration and the end of free movement of people as a key plank. They now want to install a politically inexperienced MP as Prime Minister who will trigger Article 50 on her first day.......
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
Given so much of the VoteLEAVE campaign was dedicated to immigration - why are you surprised?
I'm not surprised that it's doing something stupid. I'm disappointed.
Isn't the function of the Conservative party to be for wealth creation, instead of wealth destruction?
It is.
Unfortunately key figures in the Conservative Party just campaigned for - and won - a referendum which featured control of immigration and the end of free movement of people as a key plank. They now want to install a politically inexperienced MP as Prime Minister who will trigger Article 50 on her first day.......
So, to summarise. If you want to lose stacks of cash, vote Conservative.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
Given so much of the VoteLEAVE campaign was dedicated to immigration - why are you surprised?
I'm not surprised that it's doing something stupid. I'm disappointed.
Isn't the function of the Conservative party to be for wealth creation, instead of wealth destruction?
It is.
Unfortunately key figures in the Conservative Party just campaigned for - and won - a referendum which featured control of immigration and the end of free movement of people as a key plank. They now want to install a politically inexperienced MP as Prime Minister who will trigger Article 50 on her first day.......
So, to summarise. If you want to lose stacks of cash, vote Conservative.
You thought you could end free movement without consequences?
Lets wait to see who they choose for leader.......
Meanwhile we can add Solo, Indonesia, to the list of Muslim cities (Medina, Baghdad, Dhaka & Istanbul) attacked by Muslim terrorists.....so far looks like only the bomber died.......
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
calm down dear.
"`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’"
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
calm down dear.
"`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’"
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
Mrs Leadsom struggles to attract Tories who voted Remain in the EU referendum, with only 4 per cent giving their support. By contrast 49 per cent of Leave supporters would back Mrs May in this contest. Mrs May also beats Mr Gove by 51 points, Liam Fox by 50 points and Stephen Crabb by 63 points. Mrs Leadsom would beat Mr Gove by 33 points in the final round.
If MPs eliminate Leadsom, it's over.
Meanwhile Gove will be mouldering on the back benches and Boris TV career in America will be going from strength to strength.....
And how's your prediction faring that Cameron should never be underestimated?
What is fascinating, though, is that a growing number of MPs, peers, candidates and advisers now believe that it is time to start again with a new party of the centre left. Three months ago it was seen as foolish, or even heretical, to suggest such a thing, but since the EU referendum the idea has become mainstream. The Brexit vote has changed everything, with a former cabinet minister talking of the exciting possibilities for a “party of the 48 per cent”.
The plot against Mr Corbyn is not just creeping along pathetically, then, it is creeping along pathetically towards a mediocre destination. If the only victim were Labour itself, there would no pity in this. But the party’s retirement from serious politics allows a riven Conservative government on a rightwing trajectory to go unopposed. It also leaves the 48 per cent of voters who wanted to remain in the EU without a UK-wide party of any stature to get behind.
By all means, Labour MPs must try to remove Mr Corbyn and replace him with a plausible prime minister. But if the mission fails, political logic and the national interest both argue for a breakaway, which might unfold as follows. The 170-plus MPs who repudiated their leader last week would resign the Labour whip and sit as a new party of the pro-European centre left under leadership of their choosing. As the largest non-government group in the House of Commons, they would constitute the new official opposition, with all the privileges that entails. If Mr Corbyn’s residual Labour had fewer MPs than the Scottish National party’s 54, its struggle for visibility would be hopeless.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
I hate hearing people saying pompously, as John Patten said pompously the other day on the radio, that a thing cannot be very unique or nearly unique - it is either unique or it is not.
Now, this to me is the kind of pedantic rule-of-iron that a third- rate schoolteacher falls back on. Not only that, but it is demonstrably untrue. For example, if there were two unicorns left in the world, and one was very ill, then the other one would be nearly unique . . .
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
It's all psychological warfare between rival factions, and played out in the media - I pay zero attention to them. Let's see how the MPs vote later today.
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
Do you find her "I'm a mother (that woman's barren)" pitch attractive?
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
Leaving aside agendas etc one conclusion we can draw from the fact the same basic story is in all the media outlets is that someone has a professional operation going on. It isn't Leadsom.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
What is fascinating, though, is that a growing number of MPs, peers, candidates and advisers now believe that it is time to start again with a new party of the centre left. Three months ago it was seen as foolish, or even heretical, to suggest such a thing, but since the EU referendum the idea has become mainstream. The Brexit vote has changed everything, with a former cabinet minister talking of the exciting possibilities for a “party of the 48 per cent”.
The plot against Mr Corbyn is not just creeping along pathetically, then, it is creeping along pathetically towards a mediocre destination. If the only victim were Labour itself, there would no pity in this. But the party’s retirement from serious politics allows a riven Conservative government on a rightwing trajectory to go unopposed. It also leaves the 48 per cent of voters who wanted to remain in the EU without a UK-wide party of any stature to get behind.
By all means, Labour MPs must try to remove Mr Corbyn and replace him with a plausible prime minister. But if the mission fails, political logic and the national interest both argue for a breakaway, which might unfold as follows. The 170-plus MPs who repudiated their leader last week would resign the Labour whip and sit as a new party of the pro-European centre left under leadership of their choosing. As the largest non-government group in the House of Commons, they would constitute the new official opposition, with all the privileges that entails. If Mr Corbyn’s residual Labour had fewer MPs than the Scottish National party’s 54, its struggle for visibility would be hopeless.
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
Do you find her "I'm a mother (that woman's barren)" pitch attractive?
Vote for me, my womb works.
Because that was such an effective line when Cooper played it against Kendall.
Another sign of inexperience? There are far too many of them for comfort.
But it doesn't seem likely she'll make the final two now anyway.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
I would imagine technological change and globalization have much more to do with it than "government policy" - it may be hard for those deep into politics to understand, but generally speaking "government policy" has marginal impact on people's lives and society - that is much more governed by changes in technology and global shifts in demography, power, trade, etc.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
The sense of "what the fuck were they thinking?" started with the name that gave the initials BSE - and never really lifted itself above the levels of presenting us with New Coke.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
I hate hearing people saying pompously, as John Patten said pompously the other day on the radio, that a thing cannot be very unique or nearly unique - it is either unique or it is not.
Now, this to me is the kind of pedantic rule-of-iron that a third- rate schoolteacher falls back on. Not only that, but it is demonstrably untrue. For example, if there were two unicorns left in the world, and one was very ill, then the other one would be nearly unique . . .
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
Your Introductory Pack to being in the Backward Minority is in the post....
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
I hate hearing people saying pompously, as John Patten said pompously the other day on the radio, that a thing cannot be very unique or nearly unique - it is either unique or it is not.
Now, this to me is the kind of pedantic rule-of-iron that a third- rate schoolteacher falls back on. Not only that, but it is demonstrably untrue. For example, if there were two unicorns left in the world, and one was very ill, then the other one would be nearly unique . . .
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
They will not be inconvenienced. Leave voters either holiday in Skegness or the Isle of Wight, or fly low budget airlines from places like Stanstead and Luton.
Income decline has been going on since long before 2010, and stagnation goes back even further.
Government policy is part of it, but are you seriously suggesting that wage stagnation among the upper working classes - those who were just above minimum wage, just above tax credit threshold, and just inside the basic rate band rather than the lower rate band - who suffered most from the phenomenon I identified, was deliberate policy by Blair's government?
On topic, fascinating figures and it'd be the mother of all mess-ups were May not to get it now. Sure, there's some name recognition effect ongoing - how many people really know who Crabb is, or Leadsom beyond a couple of EURef performances? But still, it's not so much their lack of visibility; it's the positive figures for May.
It's clear, however, that her team ought to be concentrating on manoeuvring Gove into the final two, if they can.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
If it wasn't the UK, it could have been Sweden, Denmark, France, or the USA.
If people are forced to choose any two out of economic integration, national sovereignty, and democracy, many will opt for the latter two. That choice may appear irrational to a lot of wealthy people (although 42% of professionals still voted Leave) but it's not irrational to people lower down the income scale.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
Many reluctant Remainers still feel unhappy about levels of immigration.
I especially like the last paragraph, which put me in mind of this site.
Stronger In became the holding company for a liberal centrist political concept that had been transmitted in varying forms through the rise of New Labour and the ascent of Cameron. This had been the bastion of political orthodoxy for a generation, but its foundations had been corroded. Parliament’s status never recovered from the expenses scandal. The financial crisis led not to a redistribution of power and greater economic security but to austerity, coupled with apparent immunity for the elite from any consequences of their prior mismanagement. The unique opportunity of a referendum was to give voters the option of punishing a generation of politics, regardless of party allegiance. Those who chose a different path are now left without leadership, barely recognising their own country; the stateless tribe of Remainia.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
52% voted Leave.
A minority of Leave voters did so due to immigration concerns. And they shouldn't get to wreck the economy for everyone else
I don't see how Leave voters get to wreck the economy.
I especially like the last paragraph, which put me in mind of this site.
Stronger In became the holding company for a liberal centrist political concept that had been transmitted in varying forms through the rise of New Labour and the ascent of Cameron. This had been the bastion of political orthodoxy for a generation, but its foundations had been corroded. Parliament’s status never recovered from the expenses scandal. The financial crisis led not to a redistribution of power and greater economic security but to austerity, coupled with apparent immunity for the elite from any consequences of their prior mismanagement. The unique opportunity of a referendum was to give voters the option of punishing a generation of politics, regardless of party allegiance. Those who chose a different path are now left without leadership, barely recognising their own country; the stateless tribe of Remainia.
Thanks for the link! I love reading these insider stories.
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
They will not be inconvenienced. Leave voters either holiday in Skegness or the Isle of Wight, or fly low budget airlines from places like Stanstead and Luton.
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
Also it is legitimate to describe something as 'almost unique', therefore something can be, for emphasis, 'wholly unique'.
George Lansbury was wholly unique in Labour leaders in being forced from office.*
Stanley Baldwin, almost uniquely among Tory leaders, retired at a time of his choosing.
*After the last 10 days it's easy to see why he remains wholly unique in this regard!
Unless you include MacDonald, who was not only forced out but expelled from the party into the bargain: something wholly unique in Labour's history.
I do think it's legitimate to differentiate between different uniques. For example, between something which is a one-off but where other close parallels exist, and something which quite clearly stands alone without any similar occurrences.
Edit: two very good articles from William Hague (why did he leave the Commons so young?) and Rafael Behr. There will be many books written about the failure of the Remain campaign to make their case in this referendum.
What is fascinating, though, is that a growing number of MPs, peers, candidates and advisers now believe that it is time to start again with a new party of the centre left. Three months ago it was seen as foolish, or even heretical, to suggest such a thing, but since the EU referendum the idea has become mainstream. The Brexit vote has changed everything, with a former cabinet minister talking of the exciting possibilities for a “party of the 48 per cent”.
The plot against Mr Corbyn is not just creeping along pathetically, then, it is creeping along pathetically towards a mediocre destination. If the only victim were Labour itself, there would no pity in this. But the party’s retirement from serious politics allows a riven Conservative government on a rightwing trajectory to go unopposed. It also leaves the 48 per cent of voters who wanted to remain in the EU without a UK-wide party of any stature to get behind.
By all means, Labour MPs must try to remove Mr Corbyn and replace him with a plausible prime minister. But if the mission fails, political logic and the national interest both argue for a breakaway, which might unfold as follows. The 170-plus MPs who repudiated their leader last week would resign the Labour whip and sit as a new party of the pro-European centre left under leadership of their choosing. As the largest non-government group in the House of Commons, they would constitute the new official opposition, with all the privileges that entails. If Mr Corbyn’s residual Labour had fewer MPs than the Scottish National party’s 54, its struggle for visibility would be hopeless.
Not sure I'd agree. He's still pushing the 'austerity lost it' line that was proposed by that silly woman Angela Eagle on the night. In reality, it was economic decay - the loss of semi-skilled well paid jobs - coupled to fierce competition from migrants all over Europe for the unskilled jobs, keeping wages very low, that lost it. This has of course also made redistributing economic wealth downwards very much harder - so profits have gone up and wages have stagnated, therefore even before the crash inequality was growing rapidly (under Blair, wealth was more unequally distributed than at any time since the 1930s). And that has been going on for at least 17 years. One month's campaigning led by a bunch of idiots appointed for their political connections despite a manifest lack of talent and zero knowledge of life outside a narrowly defined area was hardly going to change that.
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
I thought the nub of his argument was a bit more nuanced than "austerity done it":
People had many motives to vote leave, but the most potent elements were resentment of an elite political class, rage at decades of social alienation in large swaths of the country, and a determination to reverse a tide of mass migration. Those forces overwhelmed expert pleas for economic stability.
This was a revolution. But the political establishment has not actually been deposed: the Conservative party will continue governing, only with changed leadership. What was overthrown was a conception of where and how politics is conducted.
Many years ago it was quite obvious (!) that the world was undergoing a structural shift. The emerging economies were, well, emerging, bringing new centres of production, markets, and consumers. Post-Berlin Wall, a new set of countries joined those on this upward trajectory.
Who were the beneficiaries? Well those emerging economies of course.
Who were likely to suffer? Those incumbent, post-industrial countries which had hitherto controlled production and consumption, ie us. Someone who can build a widget or mend a u-bend more cheaply than we can will necessarily undermine our income and standard of living on the one hand, yet eallow us to make savings and hence investment into more productive areas on the other.
It is the ineluctable march of history. And it is out of our control. And against this, some of us in the UK decided to try to control that tiny bit of this whole changing process that they can control: the number of people coming into our country. And also to register their dislike and dismay at the way the world is progressing.
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
Do you find her "I'm a mother (that woman's barren)" pitch attractive?
"as a mother" was repeatedly used by women in the referendum debates. I assume this is recommended by focus group wallahs.
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
Do you find her "I'm a mother (that woman's barren)" pitch attractive?
"as a mother" was repeatedly used by women in the referendum debates. I assume this is recommended by focus group wallahs.
Gisela trumped them, she's a grandmother! (In all seriousness, she was a star of the leave team)
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
I hate hearing people saying pompously, as John Patten said pompously the other day on the radio, that a thing cannot be very unique or nearly unique - it is either unique or it is not.
Now, this to me is the kind of pedantic rule-of-iron that a third- rate schoolteacher falls back on. Not only that, but it is demonstrably untrue. For example, if there were two unicorns left in the world, and one was very ill, then the other one would be nearly unique . . .
@jfbargh: Ctte:"Do you accept that Israel has a right to exist?" Corbyn: "I accept that Israel exists."
How did such a man get to lead a major British party!
TBF it's a trick question. No country has the right to exist. Sometimes the people in part of a country will decide to leave, or the majority will agree to merge it with another country, and the country will stop existing.
It's not a trick question. Israel is surrounded by armies, regimes, nations, and one mighty faith, which all want to violently destroy it, and its Jewish people. To sweep it into the sea.
In that respect it is quite unique. It's not like the potential break up of the UK or Spain.
You're a F****** WRITER!
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
Oh Charles, did they not teach you anything at Eton?
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’: The scenery was quite incredible. Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right. Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
I'm reading William Hague's article and some sentences ("There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration") seem fairly conclusive: we're not going to be in EFTA/EEA. Am I correct in this interpretation? If so, I am disappointed.
The government should immediately cut the number of immigration officers at Heathrow in the EU line by 90% so UK citizens can see what they have to look forward to abroad in the event of a deal that doesn't involve EEA. That might change a few minds.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
Your Introductory Pack to being in the Backward Minority is in the post....
Thanks, but I barely use paper these days. Is there a PDF?
'The era of just two big parties representing the vast bulk of the country is over and we now see the pent up consequences of pretending that is still the case. We urge Labour Party to lead the country towards a new politics of the 21 st century by embracing proportional representation (PR).
But there is an immediate and obvious consequence of supporting PR, the politics of alliances. The divisions we now see in both main parties and the growing multitude of smaller parties means government will increasingly be through alliances of political parties. We welcome the formation of a progressive alliance of parties that want a more equal, democratic and sustainable society.
Not least because the shift to the right we have witnessed over the last few weeks and the possible rise of an even more populist UKIP-style politics across the country demands a united and effective electoral response from all progressives.'
As no media were present I'm taking that with a pinch of salt and both papers are recycling the same source. There's a lot of disinformation going on. The Mail have it in for Andrea anyway.
Do you find her "I'm a mother (that woman's barren)" pitch attractive?
"as a mother" was repeatedly used by women in the referendum debates. I assume this is recommended by focus group wallahs.
Gisela trumped them, she's a grandmother! (In all seriousness, she was a star of the leave team)
A lot of people say that. I liked her, but I thought she struggled to make her points clearly. (A big stage, time pressure, that is perfectly understandable.)
During the debates Leadsom was my favourite, but I suspect Boris had the greatest share of speaking time among the three Leave representatives.
Comments
When he became Tory leader, the Tories had 40 fewer Scottish MPs than Labour, now the Tories have as many Scottish MPs as Labour.
If Jezza goes, the £3 that I - shall we say - "invested" in the Labour Party back in September will have been all in vain!
The problem is that if we do that then we lose the reason why we wanted to get into politics in the first place. If politics is mainly about social issues - abortion, gay marriage, and so on - or largely apolitical things like regional devolution and green energy, then I'm quite happy to let liberal conservatives do the job, with whom we largely agree (Anna Soubry is perfectly sound on those issues). And the WWC doesn't vote as a bloc - there will always be some who will vote left for economic reasons. But HYUFD is probably right about the long-term trends, so although I think we need to keep the solidarity instinct, it shouldn't be in the expectaiton of great electoral reward.
"We must be SAD. Literally SAD!"
We will soon see if any dark horse has made it through the pack this time, but whatever happens there is one crucial thought that the country and the world have to get used to: regardless of who is the next Conservative leader, we are leaving the European Union.
It is strange to have to point this out even after the referendum, but it is evidently necessary. At the weekend, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in London against the referendum result. Many more seem to think it will never be implemented. Some think a general election will overturn it. And Tony Blair has implied that if the country changes its mind we can stay in the EU after all.
As one who argued for the Remain side I hate to disillusion all these people, but there is no point living in a state of denial. On a high turnout, in a democratic society, the electorate voted to Leave.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/04/we-conservatives-are-all-leavers-now-we-must-unite-to-build-a-ne/
Having won the referendum war largely thanks to the votes of the over 40s, Leadsom has suddenly developed a keen interest in children and grandchildren. At her Conservative leadership launch, her eyes moistened and her voice became breathier every time she said “children and grandchildren”. Which was about once or twice a sentence. The message: “Anyone who doesn’t have children is evil” was subliminally beamed on to the wall behind her. It’s pure coincidence that Theresa May doesn’t have children.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsom-leadership-launch-sketch-mummy-up-is-down
Mrs Leadsom struggles to attract Tories who voted Remain in the EU referendum, with only 4 per cent giving their support. By contrast 49 per cent of Leave supporters would back Mrs May in this contest. Mrs May also beats Mr Gove by 51 points, Liam Fox by 50 points and Stephen Crabb by 63 points. Mrs Leadsom would beat Mr Gove by 33 points in the final round.
If you seriously think ANY Labour leader could be competitive in Mole Valley and Tunbridge Wells, then I'll happily have some of what you're smoking! Mr & Mrs Tunbridge Wells have not overnight become Guardian-readers happy with high levels of immigration -- they only voted Remain because they were in the minority of Brits who thought Brexit would harm THEIR OWN wallets (possibly because many of them worked for some of the multinationals who were threatening to leave the country), and their fear of that outweighed their dislike of immigration and of "our laws being made in Brussels".
Giving up on most current Labour seats, and most even semi-realistic target seats, all for some pipe dream of winning over Tory seats which stayed blue even in 1997, really is the definition of insanity.
Leadsom was a leader of the leave camp’s attempt to portray Mark Carney as chancellor George Osborne’s stooge. ......
To fair-minded observers, Leadsom’s claim was utter nonsense......
Other prominent Brexiters have sought to build bridges. Boris Johnson, in his infamous Telegraph article, got one thing right: he said Carney was doing a “superb job”. Michael Gove, launching his bid for leadership, endorsed the “wise action” taken by the governor after the vote.....
..... There are only two explanations. She may lack the experience or humility to admit she went too far during the referendum campaign. Or she still believes what she said about the governor abusing his office. Either version would be alarming in a candidate to be prime minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2016/jul/04/im-still-waiting-for-andrea-leadsoms-apology-to-mark-carney
Tory seats like Worcester and Enfield Southgate, may I remind you, went for Blair in 1997 and 2001 and Tory in 1992 and are moving towards the party demographically, or at least a more centrist version of it, they are the seats Labour should now be focusing on, working class seats like Nuneaton which voted Labour even in 1992 are now much more conservative and moving away from the party
If MPs eliminate Leadsom, it's over.
Completely over.
Con MPs - please do your duty.
Damien Green (Con) I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House wants to see no disadvantage given either to EU citizens living in this country or to UK citizens living in other European countries. I detect the faint whiff of synthetic indignation over this entire urgent question process. What judgment has the Minister made about the best way to protect the interests of the more than 1 million British citizens living, and in many cases working, in other EU countries, so that no one is disadvantaged at the end of this process?
Mike Gapes (Lab) My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) led the campaign that got us into this mess. May I take up with the Minister something he said about the British people living in other European countries? I declare an interest as president of Labour International. We have heard from lots of people who live in Spain and elsewhere who are very concerned about their future. Can the Minister end the uncertainty for those British people—many of whom could not vote in the referendum because they have been abroad for longer than 15 years—that they will not be forced out of Spain, France or elsewhere, by ensuring that the British Government make a quick, early statement on security for citizens of those countries here?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-07-04/debates/Hocdebdt20160704scrlgtghs_2Curgentquestionod20tieunationalsUkresidence/EUNationalsUKResidence
Sadly it won't be.
As we see on here LEAVErs bottomless capacity for detecting plots and anticipating betrayal will be well nurtured over the coming years as LEAVE's multiple, mutually exclusive, promises prove undeliverable.
I hope May wins.
I hope she appoints Leadsom to a prominent position in the BREXIT negotiations.
I expect at some point Leadsom to resign over her own failure to deliver what cannot be delivered, blaming May, and anyone but herself, as she goes......
Meanwhile Gove will be mouldering on the back benches and Boris TV career in America will be going from strength to strength.....
At least we now know who MI5 supports.
TM better watch her back.
If the Conservative Leadership contest has told anything so far, apart from May becoming the 'safe' and 'lets hang onto nanny's apron' candidate. Lets just remember that the strident leavers didn't outnumber the Remainers in the Parliamentary party, and I suspect that they will be drowned out by a demand for some stability and unity within the party in the hope of reaching to the wider electorate.
Isn't the function of the Conservative party to be for wealth creation, instead of wealth destruction?
Unfortunately key figures in the Conservative Party just campaigned for - and won - a referendum which featured control of immigration and the end of free movement of people as a key plank. They now want to install a politically inexperienced MP as Prime Minister who will trigger Article 50 on her first day.......
Lets wait to see who they choose for leader.......
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1390513/pm-hopeful-andrea-leadsom-stuns-conservative-mps-with-her-car-crash-pitch-at-hustings/
Nor the Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3674305/May-march-10-Cabinet-ministers-100-MPs-No10-bid-vows-build-new-Trident-now.html
Impressed by Leadsom's hustings performance.....
Something CANNOT be "quite unique"
"`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’"
@rhodri: Politwoops shows Leadsom’s “overrun with foreigners” retweet was up for 10 days, deleted 4 days ago. @Claire_Phipps https://t.co/keE0vSYYEh
TSE's confidence in the pollsters is quite touching.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/as-labour-splits-a-new-party-is-emerging-vk8tkp3ts
The plot against Mr Corbyn is not just creeping along pathetically, then, it is creeping along pathetically towards a mediocre destination. If the only victim were Labour itself, there would no pity in this. But the party’s retirement from serious politics allows a riven Conservative government on a rightwing trajectory to go unopposed. It also leaves the 48 per cent of voters who wanted to remain in the EU without a UK-wide party of any stature to get behind.
By all means, Labour MPs must try to remove Mr Corbyn and replace him with a plausible prime minister. But if the mission fails, political logic and the national interest both argue for a breakaway, which might unfold as follows. The 170-plus MPs who repudiated their leader last week would resign the Labour whip and sit as a new party of the pro-European centre left under leadership of their choosing. As the largest non-government group in the House of Commons, they would constitute the new official opposition, with all the privileges that entails. If Mr Corbyn’s residual Labour had fewer MPs than the Scottish National party’s 54, its struggle for visibility would be hopeless.
https://next.ft.com/content/3f61a52c-41c8-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/UKPolitics/product#axzz4DOUUE7T0
Now, this to me is the kind of pedantic rule-of-iron that a third- rate schoolteacher falls back on. Not only that, but it is demonstrably untrue. For example, if there were two unicorns left in the world, and one was very ill, then the other one would be nearly unique . . .
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-hereby-refute-this-almost-unique-grammatical-error-1467171.html
The problem is that the rich, i.e. most politicians don't get that as cheap labour benefits them hugely, so they make the false assumption that what benefits them benefits their voters. They seem genuinely bewildered by the idea that it doesn't and unable to comprehend just how far it is their fault for putting profit margins ahead of their voters' financial interests.
It is however appropriate that Will Straw was in charge of BSE - he's been spouting mad bull ever since that drugs bust in '98(?).
Because that was such an effective line when Cooper played it against Kendall.
Another sign of inexperience? There are far too many of them for comfort.
But it doesn't seem likely she'll make the final two now anyway.
Utterly insane to cause ourselves so much damage and inconvenience due to the backward views of a minority.
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/737525064199856128
When we use quite with a non-gradable adjective or adverb (an extreme adjective or adverb has a maximum and/or minimum, for example right – wrong), it usually means ‘very’, ‘totally’ or ‘completely’:
The scenery was quite incredible.
Helen had said the food was awful here. She was quite right.
Steve Jobs, the chairman of Pixar, is quite obviously fond of computers
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/quite
As in the Celia Johnson quite lovely sense.
Then again I am a few/less nazi.
Government policy is part of it, but are you seriously suggesting that wage stagnation among the upper working classes - those who were just above minimum wage, just above tax credit threshold, and just inside the basic rate band rather than the lower rate band - who suffered most from the phenomenon I identified, was deliberate policy by Blair's government?
If so I am surprised.
It's clear, however, that her team ought to be concentrating on manoeuvring Gove into the final two, if they can.
If people are forced to choose any two out of economic integration, national sovereignty, and democracy, many will opt for the latter two. That choice may appear irrational to a lot of wealthy people (although 42% of professionals still voted Leave) but it's not irrational to people lower down the income scale.
George Lansbury was wholly unique among Labour leaders in being forced from office.*
Stanley Baldwin, almost uniquely among Tory leaders, retired at a time of his choosing.
*After the last 10 days it's easy to see why he remains wholly unique in this regard!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign
I especially like the last paragraph, which put me in mind of this site.
Stronger In became the holding company for a liberal centrist political concept that had been transmitted in varying forms through the rise of New Labour and the ascent of Cameron. This had been the bastion of political orthodoxy for a generation, but its foundations had been corroded. Parliament’s status never recovered from the expenses scandal. The financial crisis led not to a redistribution of power and greater economic security but to austerity, coupled with apparent immunity for the elite from any consequences of their prior mismanagement. The unique opportunity of a referendum was to give voters the option of punishing a generation of politics, regardless of party allegiance. Those who chose a different path are now left without leadership, barely recognising their own country; the stateless tribe of Remainia.
I do think it's legitimate to differentiate between different uniques. For example, between something which is a one-off but where other close parallels exist, and something which quite clearly stands alone without any similar occurrences.
At what time does the Fox get shot?
Edit: two very good articles from William Hague (why did he leave the Commons so young?) and Rafael Behr. There will be many books written about the failure of the Remain campaign to make their case in this referendum.
People had many motives to vote leave, but the most potent elements were resentment of an elite political class, rage at decades of social alienation in large swaths of the country, and a determination to reverse a tide of mass migration. Those forces overwhelmed expert pleas for economic stability.
This was a revolution. But the political establishment has not actually been deposed: the Conservative party will continue governing, only with changed leadership. What was overthrown was a conception of where and how politics is conducted.
Who were the beneficiaries? Well those emerging economies of course.
Who were likely to suffer? Those incumbent, post-industrial countries which had hitherto controlled production and consumption, ie us. Someone who can build a widget or mend a u-bend more cheaply than we can will necessarily undermine our income and standard of living on the one hand, yet eallow us to make savings and hence investment into more productive areas on the other.
It is the ineluctable march of history. And it is out of our control. And against this, some of us in the UK decided to try to control that tiny bit of this whole changing process that they can control: the number of people coming into our country. And also to register their dislike and dismay at the way the world is progressing.
It is hugely understandable.
The state of the unicorn is not unique, but "nearly" related to the probability of a scenario in which it is unique arising.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00J8K6J3U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
And you will find you become quite relaxed about such matters.
But there is an immediate and obvious consequence of supporting PR, the politics of alliances. The divisions we now see in both main parties and the growing multitude of smaller parties means government will increasingly be through alliances of political parties. We welcome the formation of a progressive alliance of parties that want a more equal, democratic and sustainable society.
Not least because the shift to the right we have witnessed over the last few weeks and the possible rise of an even more populist UKIP-style politics across the country demands a united and effective electoral response from all progressives.'
http://labourlist.org/2016/07/clive-lewis-and-jonathan-reynolds-it-is-time-for-labour-to-embrace-pr/
During the debates Leadsom was my favourite, but I suspect Boris had the greatest share of speaking time among the three Leave representatives.