Can you put them up when they take into effect the devaluation in sterling?
Taking into account the 13% devaluation on Sterling puts the FTSE 100 down about 8%.
I am British and buy things in £.
If I sell shares I will get £ back
The value in £ has gone up.
Sure some imported goods I might want to spend my £ on may soon go up in price, but many are not imported, and crucially the main expenditure I have is a mortgage. Which is in £, and is fixed.
So OK, converting the FTSE into another currency is not completely irrelevant, but it is more important that it has gone up in £.
I will mark you down as "Remain/hysterical"
Max is one of the most sensible people here, and a Leaver to boot. I urge you to review your categorisation .
I think we'll hear this argument a lot in coming weeks:
Party members will have the right to vote for whoever they please. But what one has a right to do is not always what it is wise to do. If May gets well over half the vote today, she will command a Parliamentary Party consensus. And if MPs give members the choice they want, members in turn should give them the candidate they want – on such numbers, at any rate. For no Party leader can flourish without the backing of those that they must work alongside every day. If you doubt it, look at Jeremy Corbyn.
I actually think we should let Leadsom into the final two, on that performance and the hits to come from her tax returns she needs to be beaten and sent to the backbenches to do penance.
Tried to stop Brexit, the Iraq war and joined a coalition that provided excellent government from 2010-2015 ?
Guilty as charged !
Is that why TSE wants them destroyed?
God no. This is an article in praise of the Lib Dems.
I had a conversation with someone yesterday evening, he asked whether I think Dave regrets hiring Sir Lynton Crosby for the election and wiping out the Lib Dems. If we hadn't won a majority he would very likely still be PM.
Bollocks. That's my thread for Sunday.
"... whether Dave regrets hiring Sir Lynton Crosby for the election and wiping out the Lib Dems. If we hadn't won a majority he would very likely still be PM." ... and we would still be in the EU. Be careful what you wish for.
The closing date for the Members' Vote is 9th September. Conservative Party HQ extended the date from the originally announced 2nd September last week. The three-moth rule runs backwards from that date so unless you were a paid-up member on 9th June you will not be allowed to vote.
Can you put them up when they take into effect the devaluation in sterling?
Taking into account the 13% devaluation on Sterling puts the FTSE 100 down about 8%.
Come now @MaxPB that's just talking down Britain to the end of days.
Well the facts are the facts. I don't like the fall in the stock market much since I took options last year. The company share price isn't looking too hot at the moment!
The FTSE was up 1.5% and the pound strengthened on Andrea Leadsom's reassuring and optimistic speech today.
Oh no doubt but the likes of Villiers and Mordaunt will not prosper. Plus the thing with the Brexit ministry is that Andrea will probably rub up the EU negotiators so badly she'll be sacked by Xmas
Agreed. I think her association with outside forces (Banks, UKIP, Farage, Leave.EU etc...) and not having any backing from remain supporters is going to make her easy to box assuming a May victory.
What's scary is that I'm beginning to come around to the idea of Gove as PM such is my dislike of Leadsom. She represents the God-bothering, gay-bashing, Tombstone group wing of the party. I can't wait for them all to die in the next 10 years.
Trouble is the most enthusiastic support is from the CWF/YBF/Mark Clarke Style libertarian moron youth wing.
Because she is New and Shiny. Neither of which are a reason to vote for her...
No. Because she knows her stuff when challenged and has excellent communication skills. She can connect with the public very effectively.
She didn't today. Just walked off with no questions. Very poor
She was poor in the second debate too. She was ineffectual and cold which isn't a great combination.
Leadsom is way warmer than May.
May is old and tired, which is probably why she made the mistake of saying she woud use EU residents in the UK as a negotiating ploy and not guarantee their continued residence in the UK.
One mans older is another mans more experienced. Either way Leadsom and her supporters are a branch of politicians the Tory party would, in many cases, be well rid of. Electorally at least they are a nightmare waiting to happen.
Radical thinking sometimes trumps conventional thinking eg Margaret Thatcher.
Now is the time to think radically and act conservatively.
Vote Leadsom.
Indeed, this is not a time for 'steady as she goes', but for someone with a vision of where to aim for from here and the skills to chart a viable course. A PhD in keeping your head below the parapet is not a positive indicator ...
I'm voting for Gove if I can.
At least he is not vacuous. I am sorry that he seems to have imploded as he is very clever and at least could be Prime Minister, unlike Andrea who is way out of her depth
There's a risk for May if people try and use the 'she's got so many MPs' line [even though it makes sense, at least to a degree].
Members get a choice. If they get told by MPs they can only vote one way, some may shift to the Not-May candidate out of bloody-mindedness (in the same way calling people Little Englanders didn't exactly attract votes to Remain).
I’m happy to say that I’ve been able to find a copy of "Saddam's Secrets: The Hunt for Iraq's Hidden Weapons":on the county library file and I look forward to reading it when it arrives at my local library in a week or so. Not as beneficial to the author as buying a copy, I realise.
The closing date for the Members' Vote is 9th September. Conservative Party HQ extended the date from the originally announced 2nd September last week. The three-moth rule runs backwards from that date so unless you were a paid-up member on 9th June you will not be allowed to vote.
That's not accurate. Mine lapsed on 12th May, and I renewed/will have a vote.
My current preference is for measures around disposable income. People measure prosperity (I assert!) by how much they've left to spend after paying their bills. It means you can't frig it as easily as inflation figures....
I'm still wondering if that was a typo for rig it...or whether that is spot on!
Oh no doubt but the likes of Villiers and Mordaunt will not prosper. Plus the thing with the Brexit ministry is that Andrea will probably rub up the EU negotiators so badly she'll be sacked by Xmas
Agreed. I think her association with outside forces (Banks, UKIP, Farage, Leave.EU etc...) and not having any backing from remain supporters is going to make her easy to box assuming a May victory.
What's scary is that I'm beginning to come around to the idea of Gove as PM such is my dislike of Leadsom. She represents the God-bothering, gay-bashing, Tombstone group wing of the party. I can't wait for them all to die in the next 10 years.
Trouble is the most enthusiastic support is from the CWF/YBF/Mark Clarke Style libertarian moron youth wing.
Because she is New and Shiny. Neither of which are a reason to vote for her...
No. Because she knows her stuff when challenged and has excellent communication skills. She can connect with the public very effectively.
She didn't today. Just walked off with no questions. Very poor
She was poor in the second debate too. She was ineffectual and cold which isn't a great combination.
Leadsom is way warmer than May.
May is old and tired, which is probably why she made the mistake of saying she woud use EU residents in the UK as a negotiating ploy and not guarantee their continued residence in the UK.
One mans older is another mans more experienced. Either way Leadsom and her supporters are a branch of politicians the Tory party would, in many cases, be well rid of. Electorally at least they are a nightmare waiting to happen.
Radical thinking sometimes trumps conventional thinking eg Margaret Thatcher.
Now is the time to think radically and act conservatively.
Vote Leadsom.
Indeed, this is not a time for 'steady as she goes', but for someone with a vision of where to aim for from here and the skills to chart a viable course. A PhD in keeping your head below the parapet is not a positive indicator ...
I'm voting for Gove if I can.
At least he is not vacuous. I am sorry that he seems to have imploded as he is very clever and at least could be Prime Minister, unlike Andrea who is way out of her depth
Andrea Leadsom seems to belive in Keep It Simple Stupid.
This seems a good tactic during the upheavel of Brexit.
Can you put them up when they take into effect the devaluation in sterling?
Taking into account the 13% devaluation on Sterling puts the FTSE 100 down about 8%.
I am British and buy things in £.
If I sell shares I will get £ back
The value in £ has gone up.
Sure some imported goods I might want to spend my £ on may soon go up in price, but many are not imported, and crucially the main expenditure I have is a mortgage. Which is in £, and is fixed.
So OK, converting the FTSE into another currency is not completely irrelevant, but it is more important that it has gone up in £.
I will mark you down as "Remain/hysterical"
Firstly I voted leave. Secondly, for British investors there is a gain, it comes from the companies who earn overseas, declare in USD and pay dividends in Sterling. Those are the companies that have dragged the index upwards.
The hysteria comes from my fellow leavers who are sticking their heads in the sand trying to pretend nothing has happened and that a 13% fall in Sterling is a "nothing to see here" movement. Let's call a spade a spade, the current market movements are sub-optimal, but they aren't "End of Days" and neither are they "nothing to see here".
If she takes us out of the single market to satisfy the false argument about a majority voting for immigration restrictions then there is no way I'll vote for the Conservatives if she is still PM in 2020 let alone go out and campaign for them. She is the antithesis of what the modern Conservative party should be.
Yup. Some of May's authoritarian tendencies trouble me, but she is considerably more main stream (and so, voter-friendly) than either Leadsmen or Gove.
It is just her owning Brexit that is the lingering doubt. Will the EU believe she will go through with it? If I were the EU, I'd think she could be bought off....
Brexiteers need to get a PM in place who will invoke article 50 before BREXIT becomes so unpopular that it will be politically impossible to implement. Foreign holidays on a weak pound will start the slide, expensive fuel and house price movements will continue it.
It would take minimum a year plus for Brexit to become so unpopular. No way article 50 is delayed that long, and good luck to say Tory PM surviving the day if they called it off even if they'd delayed that long.
Treasury either complacent or foolish, just like FO. Odd way of planning for contingencies.
HM Treasury must impartially carry out government policy - except at elections, when by convention it prepares for both Labour and Tory administrations in parallel.
The point here is that was clearly not government policy to have a contingency plan. I am baffled, but there you go.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
The closing date for the Members' Vote is 9th September. Conservative Party HQ extended the date from the originally announced 2nd September last week. The three-moth rule runs backwards from that date so unless you were a paid-up member on 9th June you will not be allowed to vote.
"At least he [Gove] is not vacuous. I am sorry that he seems to have imploded as he is very clever and at least could be Prime Minister, unlike Andrea who is way out of her depth"
No he is not vacuous but he has often told us that he does not have the skill set or personal qualities to be PM. Why should we not take him at his word?
@ManWithThePlan A non-entity with no Cabinet experience and brief experience of Parliament being parachuted into Number 10 because she tickles the erogenous zones of monomaniacs?
If the Conservatives were a serious party, she would already have been laughed to scorn and her supporters along with her. Sadly, we now have only silly parties.
The only factual criticism there is that she had no cabinet experience. That is equally true for Blair and Cameron. The rest is just your own froth.
Maybe so, the the comparison you made is also inane and inappropriate. Cameron and Blair had experience of political leadership in preparation for the job. Leadsome is no Corbyn, but his example shows the difficulties for party and country when 'says the right things' and membership acclaim is the only criteria, without regard to the reality of needing political nous as well, and yes, experience.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
The government by convention makes plans for if it loses the election., so that the administration of the country goes smoothly. That's what it should have done.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
Her is the planning document the Leave campaign wanted the treasury to produce
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
The government by convention makes plans for if it loses the election., so that the administration of the country goes smoothly. That's what it should have done.
Yes, but what? What in concrete terms should they have done?
The government by convention makes plans for if it loses the election., so that the administration of the country goes smoothly. That's what it should have done.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
Theresa May worked for the Bank of England and ten years at the Association of Payment Clearing Services (a subsidiary of the clearing banks) but was never anything significant.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
I agree with you completely. Initially I was cross that they hadn't, but on reflection, that was wrong.
What they could have done was use less intemperate language about the economic consequences during the campaign. That's about all.
I think we'll hear this argument a lot in coming weeks:
Party members will have the right to vote for whoever they please. But what one has a right to do is not always what it is wise to do. If May gets well over half the vote today, she will command a Parliamentary Party consensus. And if MPs give members the choice they want, members in turn should give them the candidate they want – on such numbers, at any rate. For no Party leader can flourish without the backing of those that they must work alongside every day. If you doubt it, look at Jeremy Corbyn.
I think this is right. May is in a proper leadership contest which started with five candidates. If the PCP vote overwhelmingly in her favour then I would hope that the 2nd place candidate stands aside to ensure that the party ends up with the candidate who has the overwhelming support of its MPs. This would not be a coronation because she would have won a fair, democratic poll amongst her peers.
Gordon Brown on the other hand browbeat all his potential opponents from even contemplating standing against him in a leadership contest. He was frightened that he might lose in a fair fight. Brown was a Coronation Chicken.
The closing date for the Members' Vote is 9th September. Conservative Party HQ extended the date from the originally announced 2nd September last week. The three-moth rule runs backwards from that date so unless you were a paid-up member on 9th June you will not be allowed to vote.
The three-moth rule? Well, there are British moths called the Clouded Drab, the Confused and the Uncertain. Take your pick as to who is who. (There is also a Cameo - for Boris?!)
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
Well quite. Where was the risk register/planning for Brexit? Non-existent apparently.
Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott 'Unfit for the highest office' -read Tory MP's blistering attack on Gove at meeting last nite. Stuart confirms quote
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
He had a plan - to resign and get pissed with his wife.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
You are quite right, I don't undertstand what these plans were supposed to be. The usual suspects keep saying it's all Cameron's faults that there weren't any, but they are completely silent on what these mysterious plans were supposed to cover. Perhaps you can tell me.
Treasury either complacent or foolish, just like FO. Odd way of planning for contingencies.
HM Treasury must impartially carry out government policy - except at elections, when by convention it prepares for both Labour and Tory administrations in parallel.
The point here is that was clearly not government policy to have a contingency plan. I am baffled, but there you go.
As Richard said, once you reflect a little, there's not much to be done. The economic measures are in place via the recommendations of the Financial Stability report and. Brexit is a political process mediated via 27 partners. There's literally no sensible conversation to be had.
Perhaps there could have been informal talks with the E11 countries on potential FTAs, but nothing substantive would be possible.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
You run a business but do not understand a risk register and contingency planning? Hope your good luck holds.
The government by convention makes plans for if it loses the election., so that the administration of the country goes smoothly. That's what it should have done.
That's what it did.
Those plans are in operation right now
ROFL
flounce off in a sulk wibble on the economy reverse everything they said during the campaign
Heck they've even lost at losing, as Boris and Farage have buggered off over the hill
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
The government by convention makes plans for if it loses the election., so that the administration of the country goes smoothly. That's what it should have done.
Yes, but what? What in concrete terms should they have done?
An explanation of the fiscal policy that the Government intended to pursue, for one. We had Osborne's meek acceptance that his deficit reduction is off.
''I think the general public are going to be bloody angry if Tory members give it to Leadsom in another Corbynesque moment of summer madness, despite May clearly being their preference and need for experience and stability.''
Read the threads of the popular tory newspapers.
The thousands of ordinary folk who check those out do not have a good word to say about May.
Then again, they overwhelmingly backed Brexit, as opposed to the parrots on here now squawking for a May coronation.
Many on here who backed leave also back may.
But the simple falsehood being peddled is the implication only Leadsome will or can implement the democratic will of the referendum. That is simply not the case. Many who voted leave might not like Mays Brexit plan - we need more detail - but she will implement leave and that is what we asked for. She would not last as PM if she tried otherwise.
So if there's no real danger, despite sone remainer hopes, of may not declaring article 50 at done some point it comes down to who has the best plan for leave, who's leave tactics are best, and who would do the best at all the other things a PM does.
Now, if people think that would be Leadsome, fine. But let's not pretend this is something other than it is.It isn't leave vs remain, it isn't establishment vs anti-establishment. It's about leave 1 vs leave 2, and who is best overall including those leave options.
The government by convention makes plans for if it loses the election., so that the administration of the country goes smoothly. That's what it should have done.
Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott 'Unfit for the highest office' -read Tory MP's blistering attack on Gove at meeting last nite. Stuart confirms quote
Calling out Boris on flakeyness is hardly a crime.
Gove's achievements at Education and in Prison reform outshine anything May has done at the home office (which isn't a high bar).
I don’t think anyone expected the Four Horsemen immediately after the Referendum, any more than anyone with any degree of common sense expected that all EU migrants would be packing their bags on June 24th.
I fear we will find things getting worse, but it’ll be more like the tide going out ..... waves will still come in, just not quite as far each time.
And when (if .... I can still hope) we do Leave then the political repercussions from accepting FoM will be nasty, and I think they might rebound on UKIP ..... you said it’d stop. Now look!
An explanation of the fiscal policy that the Government intended to pursue, for one. We had Osborne's meek acceptance that his deficit reduction is off.
Ah, at least we have some semblance of an answer. Doesn't make much sense, though. How would Osborne trying to second guess the fiscal policy of his successor have helped? In any case, fiscal policy is by its nature slow acting. There's no hurry on that.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
You are quite right, I don't undertstand what these plans were supposed to be. The usual suspects keep saying it's all Cameron's faults that there weren't any, but they are completely silent on what these mysterious plans were supposed to cover. Perhaps you can tell me.
Then you'd better ask Cameron he called the referendum.
Personally I'd have dragged a whole pile of capital spending forward to counteract the uncertainty and announced it on day 1.
The Anti-Defamation League has told Donald Trump to stop using the slogan "America First".
But for tax avoidance reasons, being a 501(c) (3) organisation, the ADL neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. So they're not doing that here. Okay? They wouldn't ever do it. Anyone who says otherwise is like Hitler.
An explanation of the fiscal policy that the Government intended to pursue, for one. We had Osborne's meek acceptance that his deficit reduction is off.
Ah, at least we have some semblance of an answer. Doesn't make much sense, though. How would Osborne trying to second guess the fiscal policy of his successor have helped? In any case, fiscal policy is by its nature slow acting. There's no hurry on that.
which successor ?
Cameron announced consistently that he was staying.
If he didnt intend to he should have made that clear.
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
Well quite. Where was the risk register/planning for Brexit? Non-existent apparently.
Given the Leave campaign refused to spell out any details of what Leaving would look like (for reasons that are now clear, i.e. all of the options either significantly damage the economy or contradict Leave campaign promises, or both), how exactly would they have planned?
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
Well quite. Where was the risk register/planning for Brexit? Non-existent apparently.
Given the Leave campaign refused to spell out any details of what Leaving would look like (for reasons that are now clear, i.e. none of the options are palatable), how exactly would they have planned?
There are many right-wing think tanks calling for all of the possible scenarios. The Adam Smith Institute for example have several proposals, although they prefer EEA (I personally disagree) but to pretend there are no details is to bury your head in the sand.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
You are quite right, I don't undertstand what these plans were supposed to be. The usual suspects keep saying it's all Cameron's faults that there weren't any, but they are completely silent on what these mysterious plans were supposed to cover. Perhaps you can tell me.
Then you'd better ask Cameron he called the referendum.
Personally I'd have dragged a whole pile of capital spending forward to counteract the uncertainty and announced it on day 1.
What on earth is the Gov't doing with decisions for this country's airports. Delayed for the mayoral referendum. Delayed for the EU referendum. A totally politically driven agenda on key economic decisions. It's pathetic.
Gove's campaign manager has written to May supporting MPs to switch their vote to Gove to keep out Leadsom - implying the reason that Gove would be a weaker candidate against May at the membership vote.
So Gove's team advertising that Leadsom is a stronger candidate with the membership than is Gove. Not very clever.
I think we'll hear this argument a lot in coming weeks:
Party members will have the right to vote for whoever they please. But what one has a right to do is not always what it is wise to do. If May gets well over half the vote today, she will command a Parliamentary Party consensus. And if MPs give members the choice they want, members in turn should give them the candidate they want – on such numbers, at any rate. For no Party leader can flourish without the backing of those that they must work alongside every day. If you doubt it, look at Jeremy Corbyn.
I think this is right. May is in a proper leadership contest which started with five candidates. If the PCP vote overwhelmingly in her favour then I would hope that the 2nd place candidate stands aside to ensure that the party ends up with the candidate who has the overwhelming support of its MPs. This would not be a coronation because she would have won a fair, democratic poll amongst her peers.
Gordon Brown on the other hand browbeat all his potential opponents from even contemplating standing against him in a leadership contest. He was frightened that he might lose in a fair fight. Brown was a Coronation Chicken.
No, it wasn't that - remember I was there. His team believed that a coronation would look impressively united in the approach to the GE. There was no doubt whatever that he'd win in the absence of a serious challenger like David M, but the team thought that even a token challenge from the left would look divisive.
The problem is that you don't get splashy media coverage for merely winning - the media say meh, and move on (this has been Hillary's problem too, since the media never really thought Bernie had a chance). Blair understood that you had to take on opponents on selected ground of their choosing (cf. Clause 4), and win big.
(May) she will implement leave and that is what we asked for. She would not last as PM if she tried otherwise.
Say she says "Here's a Leave plan, and I'm going to submit it to parliament and then to the people. And since Cameron was wrong not to do the same, one of the options on the ballot paper in the second referendum will be 'Remain'."
Then there'll be a vote of confidence and she'll lose it? Will the Leavite minority in the Commons seize power with or without a general election?
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
Those two statements if they are verbatim as reported by Scott are not actually contradictory.
Momentum INCREDIBLE NEWS. 200,000 people have joined @UKLabour in 10 days. Join the movement to say #CorbynStays https://t.co/aqDGqwZCL0
If those numbers are right, and yet it is still the case that Labour cannot win under their current path, then the disconnect between party members and voters must be cosmically huge.
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
Those two statements if they are verbatim as reported by Scott are not actually contradictory.
An explanation of the fiscal policy that the Government intended to pursue, for one. We had Osborne's meek acceptance that his deficit reduction is off.
Ah, at least we have some semblance of an answer. Doesn't make much sense, though. How would Osborne trying to second guess the fiscal policy of his successor have helped? In any case, fiscal policy is by its nature slow acting. There's no hurry on that.
Mr. Nabavi, Start from the principle of what is the risk? The country might Vote for Leave. Ok, What is likely to happen that would be bad for the country? How to we minimise/eliminate the effect if the risk actually happens?
I am sure you have done something similar for your own company and are just pretending to be obtuse for effect. If you haven't got a risk register for your company and really don't understand this stuff, then I suggest you need help and fast.
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
Leadsom has worked for investment banking and fund management companies.
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
"In funds management” = I was an assistant/training to be. (But I wasn’t allowed actually to manage any/anyone’s funds.)
The government by convention makes plans for if it loses the election., so that the administration of the country goes smoothly. That's what it should have done.
That's what it did.
Those plans are in operation right now
Those plans are horrible, then
LOL - without them you'd really know what a bad decision was made. Welcome to post-Brexit land. but cheer up there are plenty of useful idiont who will tell you everything is just tickety-boo -Andrea says the fall in sterling was nothing to do with Brexit and she used to make the tea at Barclays.. or something.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
Well quite. Where was the risk register/planning for Brexit? Non-existent apparently.
Given the Leave campaign refused to spell out any details of what Leaving would look like (for reasons that are now clear, i.e. all of the options either significantly damage the economy or contradict Leave campaign promises, or both), how exactly would they have planned?
My thinking about a month ago was "If leaving is potentially so bad, why would the Gov't have stuck it in their manifesto as a referendum anyway."
Surely they wouldn't have done something that acted so potentially against our economic interests just so they could shoot UKIP's fox and have a cheap throwaway bargaining chip in negotiations with the Lib Dems again.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
You are quite right, I don't undertstand what these plans were supposed to be. The usual suspects keep saying it's all Cameron's faults that there weren't any, but they are completely silent on what these mysterious plans were supposed to cover. Perhaps you can tell me.
Then you'd better ask Cameron he called the referendum.
Personally I'd have dragged a whole pile of capital spending forward to counteract the uncertainty and announced it on day 1.
What on earth is the Gov't doing with decisions for this country's airports. Delayed for the mayoral referendum. Delayed for the EU referendum. A totally politically driven agenda on key economic decisions. It's pathetic.
Quite
theres a large suspicion HMG have been holding back capital spend this year so they could make big announcements post Bremain.
(May) she will implement leave and that is what we asked for. She would not last as PM if she tried otherwise.
Say she says "Here's a Leave plan, and I'm going to submit it to parliament and then to the people. And since Cameron was wrong not to do the same, one of the options on the ballot paper in the second referendum will be 'Remain'."
Then there'll be a vote of confidence and she'll lose it? Will the Leavite minority in the Commons seize power with or without a general election?
I don't believe she has the political will to even attempt to put such a plan forward. But if she did I think she would be challenged immediately, the Tories would be in chaos, and there'd be moves toward a General Election.
I happen to think any second referendum which includes a remain option would still be for Leave (Scots even less fired up to vote, die hard leavers even more fired up, the young disappointing turnout yet again, unlikelihood things will be so bad that enough leavers will have switched), but I don't think the Tories will allow their leader to present that risk to the people, and I cannot see Labour doing it either - despite membership being so pro-remain - and so we'd have chaos as the Tories would be split and unable to govern.
I don't put stock in the comments made right now from May and others that 'Brexit is Brexit' - if the situation were to change, they might well change their views (and in extreme situations that is no inherently unreasonable). But where it falls down is I don't see the political situation changing enough for her to risk such a plan. She will also probably face questions about it now, and be made to categorically state there will be no second referendum at all, or at least none with Remain as an option. Any equivocation on that point, any nuance, will only play into Leadsome's hands.
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
It's not lying so much as it is misleading. She worked for an investment bank (BZW) and for a fund manager (Invesco Perpetual). It's dancing on the head of a pin, for sure, but probably just on the correct side of the line.
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
Well quite. Where was the risk register/planning for Brexit? Non-existent apparently.
Given the Leave campaign refused to spell out any details of what Leaving would look like (for reasons that are now clear, i.e. all of the options either significantly damage the economy or contradict Leave campaign promises, or both), how exactly would they have planned?
My thinking about a month ago was "If leaving is potentially so bad, why would the Gov't have stuck it in their manifesto as a referendum anyway."
Surely they wouldn't have done something that acted so potentially against our economic interests just so they could shoot UKIP's fox and have a cheap throwaway bargaining chip in negotiations with the Lib Dems again.
I think we'll hear this argument a lot in coming weeks:
Party members will have the right to vote for whoever they please. But what one has a right to do is not always what it is wise to do. If May gets well over half the vote today, she will command a Parliamentary Party consensus. And if MPs give members the choice they want, members in turn should give them the candidate they want – on such numbers, at any rate. For no Party leader can flourish without the backing of those that they must work alongside every day. If you doubt it, look at Jeremy Corbyn.
I think this is right. May is in a proper leadership contest which started with five candidates. If the PCP vote overwhelmingly in her favour then I would hope that the 2nd place candidate stands aside to ensure that the party ends up with the candidate who has the overwhelming support of its MPs. This would not be a coronation because she would have won a fair, democratic poll amongst her peers.
Gordon Brown on the other hand browbeat all his potential opponents from even contemplating standing against him in a leadership contest. He was frightened that he might lose in a fair fight. Brown was a Coronation Chicken.
No, it wasn't that - remember I was there. His team believed that a coronation would look impressively united in the approach to the GE. There was no doubt whatever that he'd win in the absence of a serious challenger like David M, but the team thought that even a token challenge from the left would look divisive.
The problem is that you don't get splashy media coverage for merely winning - the media say meh, and move on (this has been Hillary's problem too, since the media never really thought Bernie had a chance). Blair understood that you had to take on opponents on selected ground of their choosing (cf. Clause 4), and win big.
Labour's central office and the media had prepared a smooth transition to Brown for YEARS, since even before the 2005 general election. All that shit about "Granita" and the "deal". There was even a 2003 film.
Curiously nobody in New Labour during all that time had the guts to say fuck that.
An explanation of the fiscal policy that the Government intended to pursue, for one. We had Osborne's meek acceptance that his deficit reduction is off.
Ah, at least we have some semblance of an answer. Doesn't make much sense, though. How would Osborne trying to second guess the fiscal policy of his successor have helped? In any case, fiscal policy is by its nature slow acting. There's no hurry on that.
Mr. Nabavi, Start from the principle of what is the risk? The country might Vote for Leave. Ok, What is likely to happen that would be bad for the country? How to we minimise/eliminate the effect if the risk actually happens?
I am sure you have done something similar for our own company and are just pretending to be obtuse for effect. If you haven't got a risk register for your company and really don't understand this stuff, then I suggest you need help and fast.
You still haven't answered my question. You don't seem to understand that the government did take action to minimise the risk. That's what the BoE (with support from the Treasury) has been doing. People seem to be suggesting that they should have done more. I am just asking what. So far we have had two suggestions, one of them quite sensible (bring forward capital-spending announcements). OK, fair enough, but that's hardly urgent, and it's writing a budget in a panic when you don't know the full picture. Decisions like that can wait until the Autumn Review.
A fox-hunting review? Enough Parliamentary time has been wasted on that. Plus, if the 'ban' gets removed then the next time Labour are in they'll just introduce one that isn't full of holes.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit. Not sure if I'll be back before the results are announced, so it'll be interesting to see how they do.
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
It's not lying so much as it is misleading. She worked for an investment bank (BZW) and for a fund manager (Invesco Perpetual). It's dancing on the head of a pin, for sure, but probably just on the correct side of the line.
OTOH I think Mark Carney has acted in an exemplary fashion (The BoE certainly gave the impression of having a contingency plan pdq) and his carefully chosen words have given "some" confidence to the markets.
Theresa May calls Andrea Leadsom into her office and gives her the choice of finishing 2nd today and gracefully withdrawing, or finishing 3rd.
What does Andrea do?
Maybe she has already gone to see May and asked what job's on offer if she lets May avoid looking bad by lending votes to Gove, finishes second, and then drops out?
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
you clearly dont understand what contingency plans are. cameron called the referendum and should have had a plan if he lost. Thats what risk assessment is about.
Well quite. Where was the risk register/planning for Brexit? Non-existent apparently.
Given the Leave campaign refused to spell out any details of what Leaving would look like (for reasons that are now clear, i.e. all of the options either significantly damage the economy or contradict Leave campaign promises, or both), how exactly would they have planned?
My thinking about a month ago was "If leaving is potentially so bad, why would the Gov't have stuck it in their manifesto as a referendum anyway."
Surely they wouldn't have done something that acted so potentially against our economic interests just so they could shoot UKIP's fox and have a cheap throwaway bargaining chip in negotiations with the Lib Dems again.
Surely not ?!
There used to be, in political and commercial management, something called a tour d’horizon where every so often somebody or somebodies sat down and indulged in wild “what-iffery”. With rare exceptions .... a poster reported on one in their organisation just before the vote .... few if any seem to have done that with respect to Brexit.
Does anyone know if either the EU or the Germans did?
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
It's not lying so much as it is misleading. She worked for an investment bank (BZW) and for a fund manager (Invesco Perpetual). It's dancing on the head of a pin, for sure, but probably just on the correct side of the line.
Andrea Misleadsome it is then.
Andrea Leadsom - the new Blair, but without the bad decision making.
OTOH I think Mark Carney has acted in an exemplary fashion (The BoE certainly gave the impression of having a contingency plan pdq) and his carefully chosen words have given "some" confidence to the markets.
Carney 9/10 Osborne 2/10.
The failure if contingency planning has definitely come on the treasury side. Carney has been ace. I don't understand some of the idiots who want to fire him, he's doing a good job under clearly tough conditions. I know people say he talks down the economy, but he's really just calling a spade a spade. Remember when Brown was trying to force Darling to tone down the recession from 8% to 3% in the official statistics, it feels like those people want the same action from Carney.
The hysteria comes from my fellow leavers who are sticking their heads in the sand trying to pretend nothing has happened and that a 13% fall in Sterling is a "nothing to see here" movement. Let's call a spade a spade, the current market movements are sub-optimal, but they aren't "End of Days" and neither are they "nothing to see here".
Surely over the next few months as the new plans firm up Sterling will move back up again, and those losses will be recouped ? Feels like rather short termist panic at the moment, if Sterling is still low in 3-6 months there might be room for concern. When Sterling appreciated by 20-30% around Christmas are investors going to still be sore about BrExit as they turn a nice profit ?
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)
The electorate she's trying to win over are Conservative Party members. IDS and Howard are good endorsements.
Leadsom isn't Corbyn at all. Her views are quite in tune with the 60% or so of Conservatives who voted Leave. But, she shouldn't be chosen as leader, because it's quite clear that much of the Parliamentary Party and many activists hate her, and would make her position untenable.
I'm not sure that criteria wouldn't apply to Gove or May. To me, Leadsom has more personal warmth than the other two put together. Gove is very smart and energetic, but some dislike his manner. May is more the cool technocrat, and doesn't have a reputation for team playing.
All of them have their own issues. The immense effort to rubbish Leadsom tells me that her candidacy is seen as a threat.
"To me, Leadsom has more personal warmth than the other two put together."
You must be joking. I mean, what are you even basing this on? She was hardly known before the referendum debates, and hasn't been interviewed much afterwards.
I've watched her press conference, all the tv debates, her intvs on Sky. That's quite enough for me to form an opinion.
And you qualified it with 'to me' anyway. Quite an innocuous statement to jump on.
Just pointing out that Plato's position seems quite ridiculous to me.
And you've crawled out of the woodwork to jump on my reply.
So I have. My mistake. When you returned having been unwell, I thought I'd give you another chance - for you to display a modicum of maturity. Judging by the fact you've already responded to posts that didn't refer to you with paranoia, posts that weren't addressed to you with attempted insults, and the very mildest of rebukes with 'crawled out of the woodwork', it seems I was wrong and you just aren't capable. So you'll not be responded to again.
Just another aspect of Remainer Derangement Syndrome. Not only are they utterly unwilling to change their opinion, they can not accept others having a different one. Part of the reason they lost the referendum in the first place.
I accepted the result on the day the result was announced. I'm not quite sure how that fits in with this alleged "Remainer Derangement Syndrome".
@rowenamason: Leadsom says she's never said she was a fund manager. Nov 2010 in HoC: "I have been in investment banking and funds management for 23 years"
Isn't lying to a House of Commons select committee a resigning offence?
It's not lying so much as it is misleading. She worked for an investment bank (BZW) and for a fund manager (Invesco Perpetual). It's dancing on the head of a pin, for sure, but probably just on the correct side of the line.
Yes - I think the worst Leadsom is guilty of is a little creative embroidery - adding artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative......her supporters on the other hand (Jenkins) have told outright lies...
I am completely baffled by the idea that the government should have done contingency planning for Brexit. Other than planning for market stabilsation, which was done, and so far is working very well, what on earth else were they supposed to do? Make the political decisions which the Leave campaign refused to make?
Yes.
The government should have said: this is what Leave means, this is what Remain means.
An explanation of the fiscal policy that the Government intended to pursue, for one. We had Osborne's meek acceptance that his deficit reduction is off.
Ah, at least we have some semblance of an answer. Doesn't make much sense, though. How would Osborne trying to second guess the fiscal policy of his successor have helped? In any case, fiscal policy is by its nature slow acting. There's no hurry on that.
Mr. Nabavi, Start from the principle of what is the risk? The country might Vote for Leave. Ok, What is likely to happen that would be bad for the country? How to we minimise/eliminate the effect if the risk actually happens?
I am sure you have done something similar for our own company and are just pretending to be obtuse for effect. If you haven't got a risk register for your company and really don't understand this stuff, then I suggest you need help and fast.
You still haven't answered my question. You don't seem to understand that the government did take action to minimise the risk. That's what the BoE (with support from the Treasury) has been doing. People seem to be suggesting that they should have done more. I am just asking what. So far we have had two suggestions, one of them quite sensible (bring forward capital-spending announcements). OK, fair enough, but that's hardly urgent, and it's writing a budget in a panic when you don't know the full picture. Decisions like that can wait until the Autumn Review.
Mr. Nabavi, as always you do not acknowledge the points put to you. You merely re-state your position in a slightly different way. You have been doing this for months, nay, years. I once bought you lunch so that I could explain in person why your ideas on automatic intelligence from telephone data was wrong.
In this case you seem to think that HMG have done everything that could be done has been done. I disagree, what planning was done for what the different options for a Leave vote could be? What plans were put in place for negotiating those various plans on an one to one basis with the other members of the EU? What plans were put in place for the diplomatic strategy? What were the likely red lines in the UK's negotiating position? How would HMG want to deal with the issues of expats? And so on and so forth. Yes its big, yes its complicated but that is the role of the Civil Service, and the decision was a big and important one.
I reaffirm if you haven't got a risk register and associated contingency plans for you business, and really do not understand this stuff you need to seek help.
(May) she will implement leave and that is what we asked for. She would not last as PM if she tried otherwise.
Say she says "Here's a Leave plan, and I'm going to submit it to parliament and then to the people. And since Cameron was wrong not to do the same, one of the options on the ballot paper in the second referendum will be 'Remain'."
Then there'll be a vote of confidence and she'll lose it? Will the Leavite minority in the Commons seize power with or without a general election?
I don't believe she has the political will to even attempt to put such a plan forward. But if she did I think she would be challenged immediately, the Tories would be in chaos, and there'd be moves toward a General Election.
I suppose Lab MPs would probably vote against the government, so Leavite Tories would be able to bring the government down, but what then?
I happen to think any second referendum which includes a remain option would still be for Leave (Scots even less fired up to vote, die hard leavers even more fired up, the young disappointing turnout yet again, unlikelihood things will be so bad that enough leavers will have switched), but I don't think the Tories will allow their leader to present that risk to the people, and I cannot see Labour doing it either - despite membership being so pro-remain - and so we'd have chaos as the Tories would be split and unable to govern.
Leave needs to get a plan, to unite around it, and to sell it to the people. What options should be on the ballot paper? I can't see a good argument for only having Yes and No, because a No result would also bring chaos. We need leadership but also a default.
I think if a Remain option is there, it could win, mainly because enough people will realise that leaving the EU won't bring them the immigration policy they want, or even an immigration environment significantly different from the one that follows from EU membership. Also you could have some well-known figures switching to Remain, such as Boris Johnson.
Plato-Said: If you renewed during the three months period of grace after your membership would otherwise have expired, your renewal should have been backdated such that your membership would be treated as continuous.
Comments
Andrea gives May a poke to wake her up.
Party members will have the right to vote for whoever they please. But what one has a right to do is not always what it is wise to do. If May gets well over half the vote today, she will command a Parliamentary Party consensus. And if MPs give members the choice they want, members in turn should give them the candidate they want – on such numbers, at any rate. For no Party leader can flourish without the backing of those that they must work alongside every day. If you doubt it, look at Jeremy Corbyn.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/07/the-best-way-of-thinking-about-gove-over-leadsom-is-as-a-triumph-of-hope-over-inexperience.html
... and we would still be in the EU.
Be careful what you wish for.
The FTSE was up 1.5% and the pound strengthened on Andrea Leadsom's reassuring and optimistic speech today.
Andrea Leadsom: "We don't have to worry about winning until 2020, so we can be ourselves for 4 years"
Oh no doubt but the likes of Villiers and Mordaunt will not prosper. Plus the thing with the Brexit ministry is that Andrea will probably rub up the EU negotiators so badly she'll be sacked by Xmas
Agreed. I think her association with outside forces (Banks, UKIP, Farage, Leave.EU etc...) and not having any backing from remain supporters is going to make her easy to box assuming a May victory.
What's scary is that I'm beginning to come around to the idea of Gove as PM such is my dislike of Leadsom. She represents the God-bothering, gay-bashing, Tombstone group wing of the party. I can't wait for them all to die in the next 10 years.
Trouble is the most enthusiastic support is from the CWF/YBF/Mark Clarke Style libertarian moron youth wing.
Because she is New and Shiny. Neither of which are a reason to vote for her...
No. Because she knows her stuff when challenged and has excellent communication skills. She can connect with the public very effectively.
She didn't today. Just walked off with no questions. Very poor
She was poor in the second debate too. She was ineffectual and cold which isn't a great combination.
Leadsom is way warmer than May.
May is old and tired, which is probably why she made the mistake of saying she woud use EU residents in the UK as a negotiating ploy and not guarantee their continued residence in the UK.
One mans older is another mans more experienced. Either way Leadsom and her supporters are a branch of politicians the Tory party would, in many cases, be well rid of. Electorally at least they are a nightmare waiting to happen.
Radical thinking sometimes trumps conventional thinking eg Margaret Thatcher.
Now is the time to think radically and act conservatively.
Vote Leadsom.
Indeed, this is not a time for 'steady as she goes', but for someone with a vision of where to aim for from here and the skills to chart a viable course. A PhD in keeping your head below the parapet is not a positive indicator ...
I'm voting for Gove if I can.
At least he is not vacuous. I am sorry that he seems to have imploded as he is very clever and at least could be Prime Minister, unlike Andrea who is way out of her depth
Members get a choice. If they get told by MPs they can only vote one way, some may shift to the Not-May candidate out of bloody-mindedness (in the same way calling people Little Englanders didn't exactly attract votes to Remain).
Not as beneficial to the author as buying a copy, I realise.
Agreed. I think her association with outside forces (Banks, UKIP, Farage, Leave.EU etc...) and not having any backing from remain supporters is going to make her easy to box assuming a May victory.
What's scary is that I'm beginning to come around to the idea of Gove as PM such is my dislike of Leadsom. She represents the God-bothering, gay-bashing, Tombstone group wing of the party. I can't wait for them all to die in the next 10 years.
Trouble is the most enthusiastic support is from the CWF/YBF/Mark Clarke Style libertarian moron youth wing.
Because she is New and Shiny. Neither of which are a reason to vote for her...
No. Because she knows her stuff when challenged and has excellent communication skills. She can connect with the public very effectively.
She didn't today. Just walked off with no questions. Very poor
She was poor in the second debate too. She was ineffectual and cold which isn't a great combination.
Leadsom is way warmer than May.
May is old and tired, which is probably why she made the mistake of saying she woud use EU residents in the UK as a negotiating ploy and not guarantee their continued residence in the UK.
One mans older is another mans more experienced. Either way Leadsom and her supporters are a branch of politicians the Tory party would, in many cases, be well rid of. Electorally at least they are a nightmare waiting to happen.
Radical thinking sometimes trumps conventional thinking eg Margaret Thatcher.
Now is the time to think radically and act conservatively.
Vote Leadsom.
Indeed, this is not a time for 'steady as she goes', but for someone with a vision of where to aim for from here and the skills to chart a viable course. A PhD in keeping your head below the parapet is not a positive indicator ...
I'm voting for Gove if I can.
At least he is not vacuous. I am sorry that he seems to have imploded as he is very clever and at least could be Prime Minister, unlike Andrea who is way out of her depth
Andrea Leadsom seems to belive in Keep It Simple Stupid.
This seems a good tactic during the upheavel of Brexit.
KISS Leadsom.
https://twitter.com/ChrisEvansMP/status/750998718606876672
Treasury either complacent or foolish, just like FO. Odd way of planning for contingencies.
The hysteria comes from my fellow leavers who are sticking their heads in the sand trying to pretend nothing has happened and that a 13% fall in Sterling is a "nothing to see here" movement. Let's call a spade a spade, the current market movements are sub-optimal, but they aren't "End of Days" and neither are they "nothing to see here".
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/law/what-does-brexit-mean-for-the-divorce-capital-of-the-world-snrvnzn8z
The point here is that was clearly not government policy to have a contingency plan. I am baffled, but there you go.
A lesson for Labour.
"At least he [Gove] is not vacuous. I am sorry that he seems to have imploded as he is very clever and at least could be Prime Minister, unlike Andrea who is way out of her depth"
No he is not vacuous but he has often told us that he does not have the skill set or personal qualities to be PM. Why should we not take him at his word?
https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/749675831719518208
Those plans are in operation right now
Theresa May worked for the Bank of England and ten years at the Association of Payment Clearing Services (a subsidiary of the clearing banks) but was never anything significant.
What they could have done was use less intemperate language about the economic consequences during the campaign. That's about all.
Gordon Brown on the other hand browbeat all his potential opponents from even contemplating standing against him in a leadership contest. He was frightened that he might lose in a fair fight. Brown was a Coronation Chicken.
Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
'Unfit for the highest office' -read Tory MP's blistering attack on Gove at meeting last nite. Stuart confirms quote
Perhaps there could have been informal talks with the E11 countries on potential FTAs, but nothing substantive would be possible.
A picture of Ed Miliband appears on the wall in the Australian Labor party campaign headquarters. Above the sign reads “don’t be them”.
http://labourlist.org/2016/07/heres-how-australias-labor-leader-triumphed-over-a-hostile-media-and-avoided-the-fate-of-ed-miliband/
flounce off in a sulk
wibble on the economy
reverse everything they said during the campaign
Heck they've even lost at losing, as Boris and Farage have buggered off over the hill
The government hasn't even been able to *say* plans are in place and we're executing them. There should have been no scope for articles like this which undermine confidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/28/it-was-david-camerons-job-to-prepare-britain-for-the-possibility/
But the simple falsehood being peddled is the implication only Leadsome will or can implement the democratic will of the referendum. That is simply not the case. Many who voted leave might not like Mays Brexit plan - we need more detail - but she will implement leave and that is what we asked for. She would not last as PM if she tried otherwise.
So if there's no real danger, despite sone remainer hopes, of may not declaring article 50 at done some point it comes down to who has the best plan for leave, who's leave tactics are best, and who would do the best at all the other things a PM does.
Now, if people think that would be Leadsome, fine. But let's not pretend this is something other than it is.It isn't leave vs remain, it isn't establishment vs anti-establishment. It's about leave 1 vs leave 2, and who is best overall including those leave options.
Gove's achievements at Education and in Prison reform outshine anything May has done at the home office (which isn't a high bar).
I fear we will find things getting worse, but it’ll be more like the tide going out ..... waves will still come in, just not quite as far each time.
And when (if .... I can still hope) we do Leave then the political repercussions from accepting FoM will be nasty, and I think they might rebound on UKIP ..... you said it’d stop. Now look!
Personally I'd have dragged a whole pile of capital spending forward to counteract the uncertainty and announced it on day 1.
But for tax avoidance reasons, being a 501(c) (3) organisation, the ADL neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. So they're not doing that here. Okay? They wouldn't ever do it. Anyone who says otherwise is like Hitler.
Cameron announced consistently that he was staying.
If he didnt intend to he should have made that clear.
So Gove's team advertising that Leadsom is a stronger candidate with the membership than is Gove. Not very clever.
The problem is that you don't get splashy media coverage for merely winning - the media say meh, and move on (this has been Hillary's problem too, since the media never really thought Bernie had a chance). Blair understood that you had to take on opponents on selected ground of their choosing (cf. Clause 4), and win big.
Then there'll be a vote of confidence and she'll lose it? Will the Leavite minority in the Commons seize power with or without a general election?
I am sure you have done something similar for your own company and are just pretending to be obtuse for effect. If you haven't got a risk register for your company and really don't understand this stuff, then I suggest you need help and fast.
That means Leadsom will be second and in the membership ballot. Hurray.
Surely they wouldn't have done something that acted so potentially against our economic interests just so they could shoot UKIP's fox and have a cheap throwaway bargaining chip in negotiations with the Lib Dems again.
Surely not
theres a large suspicion HMG have been holding back capital spend this year so they could make big announcements post Bremain.
4 king idiots,
I happen to think any second referendum which includes a remain option would still be for Leave (Scots even less fired up to vote, die hard leavers even more fired up, the young disappointing turnout yet again, unlikelihood things will be so bad that enough leavers will have switched), but I don't think the Tories will allow their leader to present that risk to the people, and I cannot see Labour doing it either - despite membership being so pro-remain - and so we'd have chaos as the Tories would be split and unable to govern.
I don't put stock in the comments made right now from May and others that 'Brexit is Brexit' - if the situation were to change, they might well change their views (and in extreme situations that is no inherently unreasonable). But where it falls down is I don't see the political situation changing enough for her to risk such a plan. She will also probably face questions about it now, and be made to categorically state there will be no second referendum at all, or at least none with Remain as an option. Any equivocation on that point, any nuance, will only play into Leadsome's hands.
Curiously nobody in New Labour during all that time had the guts to say fuck that.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit. Not sure if I'll be back before the results are announced, so it'll be interesting to see how they do.
Carney 9/10
Osborne 2/10.
Tory activists marched on Parliament in a bizarre show of support for leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom.
Footage of Tory MP Tim Loughton, her campaign chief, leading the crowd through Westminster has triggered a wave of ridicule on social media.
In painfully awkward scenes, he leads the “posh” protesters in chants of “What do we want? Leadsom for leader!”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-activists-stage-painfully-embarrassing-march-on-parliament-in-support-of-andrea-leadsom-a3290256.html
Does anyone know if either the EU or the Germans did?
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Of all the things to spend parliamentary time on...
@jamiesont: Andrea Leadsom is my new favourite Fast Show character https://t.co/alrt27OqFI
Chortle.
The government should have said: this is what Leave means, this is what Remain means.
And then left it to us to choose.
They might even have got a Remain win that way.
In this case you seem to think that HMG have done everything that could be done has been done. I disagree, what planning was done for what the different options for a Leave vote could be? What plans were put in place for negotiating those various plans on an one to one basis with the other members of the EU? What plans were put in place for the diplomatic strategy? What were the likely red lines in the UK's negotiating position? How would HMG want to deal with the issues of expats? And so on and so forth. Yes its big, yes its complicated but that is the role of the Civil Service, and the decision was a big and important one.
I reaffirm if you haven't got a risk register and associated contingency plans for you business, and really do not understand this stuff you need to seek help.
I think if a Remain option is there, it could win, mainly because enough people will realise that leaving the EU won't bring them the immigration policy they want, or even an immigration environment significantly different from the one that follows from EU membership. Also you could have some well-known figures switching to Remain, such as Boris Johnson.
1. Laugh
2. Say "Thank you, this is just what I needed"
3. Hold presser to tell Tory party members what just transpired.