As part of an open question on what advantages Leadsom had over May she said i) optimism and ii) family.
Sylvester then perfectly appropriately followed up on what Leadsom meant by 'family'.....so this horsefeathers that Leadsom 'didn't bring it up, but was answering a question' is just that - horsefeathers.....
Theoretical question. Do people think that Corbyn would definitely resign if he got hammered in a General Election? Why wouldn't he just stay on? Would he definitely be voted out in such circumstances, given that a huge number of the selectorate under the current rules have actually got no stake in the electoral success of the Labour Party? He could be leader for life!
Jeremy Corbyn is performing very well on Marr. Marr is throwing all sorts of bombs his way, and he's defusing them nicely. A great answer to "do you accept you have at least some of the blame?" Leadsom should take notes!
I saw a smug, arrogant, lighweight liar happy to destroy the Labour party in order to maintain his leadership.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
There has been no vote on the EU in Parliament. No MPs have cast a vote on the EU as representatives of their constituents. Their vote was of no greater value than anyone else's.
The interesting question is what happens if there IS required to be a vote in Parliament - do MPs vote with their consituents or with the country?
Look. I want us out of the EU, the ECHR and but for our veto I would say the same about the UN which is, like the EU an utterly corrupt spewer of liberal left values. I would far rather just have WTO terms than go into EFTA/EEA and far rather have complete UK control over all aspects of immigration.
But then there is the real world. We have been in EU and EFTA before it since 1960. You cannot just realign your entire economy overnight, regardless of who gets hurt.
There is no reasonable choice other than EFTA/EEA. Join that, make use of its rules to stop people coming over to do unskilled work that they could not live on without benefits and the immigration problem largely goes away. It will also allow us to block immigration from any new country joining the EU.
Meanwhile we can steadily agree bilateral trade deals with non EU countries and re establish the Commonwealth as a supranational institution. In time hopefully we will see free movement (but without benefits/NHS until 5 year residency unless reciprocal offered (eg Australian NHS) with Australia, Nz, Canada and even South Africa and who knows, if the commonwealth becomes a powerful world institution even the US and Ireland might want to join (and maybe even China might decide it suits its purposes for HK to do so).
But none of this can be done overnight and we have to keep stability in the meanwhile. The stronger we get the less we can be pushed around, EEA/EFTA gives us this stable platform to relaunch to the world.
If we go for a maoist purity of doctrine and reject even EEA/EFTA now it could be a disaster which will prevent Brexit.
Slowly, gently, catchy Monkey.
Vote May.
Let me know what you started drinking on a Sunday morning.
The British People never wanted the Commonwealth reduced to a ceremonial institiution. Neither did the people of the commonwealth.
It was the enemy without that did to further their vested interests aided by the enemy within, people such as Duncan Sandys.
Within 20 years the Commonwealth heads of government meetings will be as important as EU summits are now.
When you say the "Commonwealth" , do you mean the "white" Commonwealth [ otherwise, known as the "Old" Commonwealth ] or the entire Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is composed of mainly Republics. Take out your rose tinted spectacles.
Those anonymous sources? It wasn't you, Mr P, was it?
Probably someone in the Times newsroom.
This should be a great chance for the LDs. The two main parties with "problematic" leaders, Ukip now seeing its reason for existing diminished, Tim will never have another opening like this.
But I respect them for not dropping their fanatical devotion to Europe. Death before dishonour.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily Labour voters "returning home" (the post-coalition conclusion that there was no point lending your vote to keep out a Tory if all you got was a zealous Tory-enabler). In general those voters would be expected to break pro-European by at least the 2:1 typical of Labour voters, probably even more pro given the demographics of those seats. So it seems likely that at the very least the LDs would succeed in getting the "punish the stupid Tories" vote back and with it a couple of dozen seats.
Harder to call nationwide, but in pro-remain seats which are LD vs Lab, or 3-way competitions you can see a lot of Labour switchers if Eagle (or whoever) goes into the GE with some handwringing patheticness of "yes, leaving the EU is a disaster, but we can't actually oppose it". OTOH, it's hard to see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
In South West London, Twickenham and Richmond have some of the highest Remain percentages in the country. I could what you suggest happening there. (Richmond, I would suggest is particularly vulnerable because Zac was publicly Eurosceptic.) Furthermore, the local council remains chock full of LD members, so there's no shortage of ground game there.
Theoretical question. Do people think that Corbyn would definitely resign if he got hammered in a General Election? Why wouldn't he just stay on? Would he definitely be voted out in such circumstances, given that a huge number of the selectorate under the current roles have actually got no stake in the electoral success of the Labour Party? He could be leader for life!
It woukd depend on whether the members want purity even if it means losing or if they genuinely think he will win and will be shocked. 15 years of Tory rule with the prospect of more could concentrate minds, or just for him see it as worth stepping aside for a younger leader of similar views.
Owen Smith tweets: I am not prepared to stand by and see our party split. And I have asked to meet with Jeremy again tomorrow to see how we can stop that.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
Did he vote in favour or against letting your constituency (and the rest of the nation) have a free Voe.
Having allowed a free vote I see no reason MPs shouldn't take that themselves. Your MP was one vote of tens of thousands in your constituency but one of only hundreds in the country when it came to allowing the vote.
He voted against a referendum, in several public meetings he sat next to me and declared he was for Out. Strangely he changed his mind a few months ago, now he's a laughing stock in the local association.
Look. I want us out of the EU, the ECHR and but for our veto I would say the same about the UN which is, like the EU an utterly corrupt spewer of liberal left values. I would far rather just have WTO terms than go into EFTA/EEA and far rather have complete UK control over all aspects of immigration.
But then there is the real world. We have been in EU and EFTA before it since 1960. You cannot just realign your entire economy overnight, regardless of who gets hurt.
There is no reasonable choice other than EFTA/EEA. Join that, make use of its rules to stop people coming over to do unskilled work that they could not live on without benefits and the immigration problem largely goes away. It will also allow us to block immigration from any new country joining the EU.
Meanwhile we can steadily agree bilateral trade deals with non EU countries and re establish the Commonwealth as a supranational institution. In time hopefully we will see free movement (but without benefits/NHS until 5 year residency unless reciprocal offered (eg Australian NHS) with Australia, Nz, Canada and even South Africa and who knows, if the commonwealth becomes a powerful world institution even the US and Ireland might want to join (and maybe even China might decide it suits its purposes for HK to do so).
But none of this can be done overnight and we have to keep stability in the meanwhile. The stronger we get the less we can be pushed around, EEA/EFTA gives us this stable platform to relaunch to the world.
If we go for a maoist purity of doctrine and reject even EEA/EFTA now it could be a disaster which will prevent Brexit.
Slowly, gently, catchy Monkey.
Vote May.
Let me know what you started drinking on a Sunday morning.
The British People never wanted the Commonwealth reduced to a ceremonial institiution. Neither did the people of the commonwealth or the head of the Commonwealth.
It was the enemy without that did to further their vested interests aided by the enemy within, people such as Duncan Sandys.
Within 20 years the Commonwealth heads of government meetings will be as important as EU summits are now.
The two largest members of the commonwealth are nuclear armed enemies!
Owen Smith tweets: I am not prepared to stand by and see our party split. And I have asked to meet with Jeremy again tomorrow to see how we can stop that.
Jeremy Corbyn is performing very well on Marr. Marr is throwing all sorts of bombs his way, and he's defusing them nicely. A great answer to "do you accept you have at least some of the blame?" Leadsom should take notes!
I saw a smug, arrogant, lighweight liar happy to destroy the Labour party in order to maintain his leadership.
Owen Smith has flat out accused him of lying regarding him being prepared to split the party - claimed McDonnell also said 'If that's what it takes'.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be no price to pay at all.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic support to bring into action, and the other parties will be options for people to choose to prevent. Now, the ld position woukd be a hard sell even for many remainers but they're free to try it. There is the question of what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
If the Leave case is a good one, it would win a second referendum.
But their winning points (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) have been admitted as 'mistake' and misunderstanding. They would not win a second referendum.
There does seem to a general mood emerging that Corbyn is willing, indeed determined, to see the death of Labour as a Parliamentary party, perhaps because his fellow travellers view the whole concept of representative democracy as flawed.
Both he, and Arron banks, seem to prefer "direct democracy"
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
It's important to remember: he is the representative of the constituency. He is not bound to follow the views of its citizens, but to do what he thinks is right.
I think if 20 MPs threatened to quit if Leadsom wins, the response of many tory members would be
'do you promise?'
Leadsom can still win if she can learn from these early clusterf8cks, develop a proper team and come up with a decent programme.
The Tories have a majority of 12......I know Andrea describes herself as an 'optimist' - but there's a difference between 'optimism' and 'delusion'.....
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
There has been no vote on the EU in Parliament. No MPs have cast a vote on the EU as representatives of their constituents. Their vote was of no greater value than anyone else's.
The interesting question is what happens if there IS required to be a vote in Parliament - do MPs vote with their consituents or with the country?
The MPs are representatives not delegates.
I know. But all MPs will need to weigh up the potential electoral consequences of voting against the views of their constituency. And doing so on some issues will be more damaging than others.
There does seem to a general mood emerging that Corbyn is willing, indeed determined, to see the death of Labour as a Parliamentary party, perhaps because his fellow travellers view the whole concept of representative democracy as flawed.
Both he, and Arron banks, seem to prefer "direct democracy"
Theoretical question. Do people think that Corbyn would definitely resign if he got hammered in a General Election? Why wouldn't he just stay on? Would he definitely be voted out in such circumstances, given that a huge number of the selectorate under the current roles have actually got no stake in the electoral success of the Labour Party? He could be leader for life!
It woukd depend on whether the members want purity even if it means losing or if they genuinely think he will win and will be shocked. 15 years of Tory rule with the prospect of more could concentrate minds, or just for him see it as worth stepping aside for a younger leader of similar views.
If he hangs on until 2020 nothing will ever get him out. When one of his sons is ready to take over the mantle he may consider standing down.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be no price to pay at all.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic supportf what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
If the Leave case is a good one, it would win a second referendum.
But their winning points (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) have been admitted as 'mistake' and misunderstanding. They would not win a second referendum.
I doubt that, but the risk is why no Tory PM would survive suggesting one.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
Hmmm - left-winger Surby batting for right-winger Leadsom. It's a puzzler.
''The Tories have a majority of 12......I know Andrea describes herself as an 'optimist' - but there's a difference between 'optimism' and 'delusion'.....'''
You think the 130 leavers will fall in behind Dudley do nothing May? as the months tick by, zero gets done, the remainers angle for a further referenda and UKIP scream betrayal? think again.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
It's important to remember: he is the representative of the constituency. He is not bound to follow the views of its citizens, but to do what he thinks is right.
Totally agree but he doesn't do what he thinks is right, he does what he's told by his boss. I naively assumed his bosses were his constituents.
I think if 20 MPs threatened to quit if Leadsom wins, the response of many tory members would be
'do you promise?'
Leadsom can still win if she can learn from these early clusterf8cks, develop a proper team and come up with a decent programme.
The Tories have a majority of 12......I know Andrea describes herself as an 'optimist' - but there's a difference between 'optimism' and 'delusion'.....
She was certainly optimistic with her cv. and delusional if she thought pointing out that Mrs May was childless was going to do her any good.
Look. I want us out of the EU, the ECHR and but for our veto I would say the same about the UN which is, like the EU an utterly corrupt spewer of liberal left values. I would far rather just have WTO terms than go into EFTA/EEA and far rather have complete UK control over all aspects of immigration.
But then there is the real world. We have been in EU and EFTA before it since 1960. You cannot just realign your entire economy overnight, regardless of who gets hurt.
There is no reasonable choice other than EFTA/EEA. Join that, make use of its rules to stop people coming over to do unskilled work that they could not live on without benefits and the immigration problem largely goes away. It will also allow us to block immigration from any new country joining the EU.
Meanwhile we can steadily agree bilateral trade deals with non EU countries and re establish the Commonwealth as a supranational institution. In time hopefully we will see free movement (but without benefits/NHS until 5 year residency unless reciprocal offered (eg Australian NHS) with Australia, Nz, Canada and even South Africa and who knows, if the commonwealth becomes a powerful world institution even the US and Ireland might want to join (and maybe even China might decide it suits its purposes for HK to do so).
But none of this can be done overnight and we have to keep stability in the meanwhile. The stronger we get the less we can be pushed around, EEA/EFTA gives us this stable platform to relaunch to the world.
If we go for a maoist purity of doctrine and reject even EEA/EFTA now it could be a disaster which will prevent Brexit.
Slowly, gently, catchy Monkey.
Vote May.
Let me know what you started drinking on a Sunday morning.
The British People never wanted the Commonwealth reduced to a ceremonial institiution. Neither did the people of the commonwealth or the head of the Commonwealth.
It was the enemy without that did to further their vested interests aided by the enemy within, people such as Duncan Sandys.
Within 20 years the Commonwealth heads of government meetings will be as important as EU summits are now.
The two largest members of the commonwealth are nuclear armed enemies!
Those anonymous sources? It wasn't you, Mr P, was it?
Probably someone in the Times newsroom.
This should be a great chance for the LDs. The two main parties with "problematic" leaders, Ukip now seeing its reason for existing diminished, Tim will never have another opening like this.
But I respect them for not dropping their fanatical devotion to Europe. Death before dishonour.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily Labour voters "returning home" (the post-coalition conclusion that there was no point lending your vote to keep out a Tory if all you got was a zealous Tory-enabler). In general those voters would be expected to break pro-European by at least the 2:1 typical of Labour voters, probably even more pro given the demographics of those seats. So it seems likely that at the very least the LDs would succeed in getting the "punish the stupid Tories" vote back and with it a couple of dozen seats.
Harder to call nationwide, but in pro-remain seats which are LD vs Lab, or 3-way competitions you can see a lot of Labour switchers if Eagle (or whoever) goes into the GE with some handwringing patheticness of "yes, leaving the EU is a disaster, but we can't actually oppose it". OTOH, it's hard to see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
In South West London, Twickenham and Richmond have some of the highest Remain percentages in the country. I could what you suggest happening there. (Richmond, I would suggest is particularly vulnerable because Zac was publicly Eurosceptic.) Furthermore, the local council remains chock full of LD members, so there's no shortage of ground game there.
And, Sutton, the only LD seat in London, voted Leave overwhelmingly.
@paulwaugh: Clearest new mood music this morning from both Corbyn + Eagle is both seem to suspect NEC will say he needs MP nominations to get on ballot
I think if 20 MPs threatened to quit if Leadsom wins, the response of many tory members would be
'do you promise?'
Leadsom can still win if she can learn from these early clusterf8cks, develop a proper team and come up with a decent programme.
The Tories have a majority of 12......I know Andrea describes herself as an 'optimist' - but there's a difference between 'optimism' and 'delusion'.....
She was certainly optimistic with her cv. and delusional if she thought pointing out that Mrs May was childless was going to do her any good.
Perhaps her dark arts handlers think so.
As someone pointed out, the most despicable bit about the whole interview was where she actually commented on how she thought May might feel about not having any children.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
Hmmm - left-winger Surby batting for right-winger Leadsom. It's a puzzler.
I'm sure he has the best interests of the Conservative Party at heart.....
Andrea Leadsom was under mounting pressure to reveal her financial affairs last night, after she failed to meet a self-imposed deadline for publishing her tax return.
The former banker had said she would release details of her tax affairs yesterday – four days after Tory leadership rival Theresa May published four years’ worth of hers.
But the plan was dropped at the last minute, and without a new date being set. A source insisted there was no problem, saying: ‘We have not fixed a date, but it won’t be long.’
The delay will heighten speculation the energy minister has ‘something to hide’.
The Tories have a majority of 12......I know Andrea describes herself as an 'optimist' - but there's a difference between 'optimism' and 'delusion'.....
You think the 130 leavers will fall in behind Dudley do nothing May? as the months tick by, zero gets done, the remainers angle for a further referenda and UKIP scream betrayal? think again.
Remainers in the Tory ranks outside 1 or 2 will not angle for a second referendum. There's no guarantee it'd win, the Eu isn't going to make a new offer to justify it, there will be immense pressure to declare article 50 to prevent it, anyone who wants one knows the government would be brought down if it tried, and do on. I think the polish foreign minister had the right of it, even if we as a nation changed our minds politically were set.
UKIP screaming betrayal is more possible, and Tory ructions, depending on what may goes for. With a small majority she too will have enough troublemakers.
Owen Smith tweets: I am not prepared to stand by and see our party split. And I have asked to meet with Jeremy again tomorrow to see how we can stop that.
Look. I want us out of the EU, the ECHR and but for our veto I would say the same about the UN which is, like the EU an utterly corrupt spewer of liberal left values. I would far rather just have WTO terms than go into EFTA/EEA and far rather have complete UK control over all aspects of immigration.
But then there is the real world. We have been in EU and EFTA before it since 1960. You cannot just realign your entire economy overnight, regardless of who gets hurt.
There is no reasonable choice other than EFTA/EEA. Join that, make use of its rules to stop people coming over to do unskilled work that they could not live on without benefits and the immigration problem largely goes away. It will also allow us to block immigration from any new country joining the EU.
Meanwhile we can steadily agree bilateral trade deals with non EU countries and re establish the Commonwealth as a supranational institution. In time hopefully we will see free movement (but without benefits/NHS until 5 year residency unless reciprocal offered (eg Australian NHS) with Australia, Nz, Canada and even South Africa and who knows, if the commonwealth becomes a powerful world institution even the US and Ireland might want to join (and maybe even China might decide it suits its purposes for HK to do so).
But none of this can be done overnight and we have to keep stability in the meanwhile. The stronger we get the less we can be pushed around, EEA/EFTA gives us this stable platform to relaunch to the world.
If we go for a maoist purity of doctrine and reject even EEA/EFTA now it could be a disaster which will prevent Brexit.
Slowly, gently, catchy Monkey.
Vote May.
Let me know what you started drinking on a Sunday morning.
The British People never wanted the Commonwealth reduced to a ceremonial institiution. Neither did the people of the commonwealth or the head of the Commonwealth.
It was the enemy without that did to further their vested interests aided by the enemy within, people such as Duncan Sandys.
Within 20 years the Commonwealth heads of government meetings will be as important as EU summits are now.
Oh dear, oh dear. Try living in the 21st century. Or even the late 20th century. The Empire died a long time ago.
If the Commonwealth was really meaningful, we would not impose immigration rules on their citizens. Or perhaps you mean Canada, Australia and New Zealand and exclude India and Pakistan?
So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be no price to pay at all.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic supportf what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
If the Leave case is a good one, it would win a second referendum.
But their winning points (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) have been admitted as 'mistake' and misunderstanding. They would not win a second referendum.
I doubt that, but the risk is why no Tory PM would survive suggesting one.
It requires a swing of less than 2% to reverse the referendum. Leave won it on two massive lies, which were retracted within hours of the vote being known. Some Leavers will be feeling tricked when they see that the NHS is not getting a massive infusion of money.
You think the 130 leavers will fall in behind Dudley do nothing May? as the months tick by, zero gets done, the remainers angle for a further referenda and UKIP scream betrayal? think again.
of course is Leadsom wins she will trigger article 50 immediately, well, not immediately, at some point, after some negotiations...
And we know she will do it, as she did with her tax returns.
I think if 20 MPs threatened to quit if Leadsom wins, the response of many tory members would be
'do you promise?'
Leadsom can still win if she can learn from these early clusterf8cks, develop a proper team and come up with a decent programme.
The Tories have a majority of 12......I know Andrea describes herself as an 'optimist' - but there's a difference between 'optimism' and 'delusion'.....
She was certainly optimistic with her cv. and delusional if she thought pointing out that Mrs May was childless was going to do her any good.
Perhaps her dark arts handlers think so.
As someone pointed out, the most despicable bit about the whole interview was where she actually commented on how she thought May might feel about not having any children.
Agreed - it was both tasteless and calculated in equal measure.
If this is Eagle launching her leadership, she is making Leadsom look impressively polished.
She has the charisma of wet lettuce. As someone said, she is not even the best candidate in her family.
That has to be the worse leadership launch in history. No passion, no vision, no personality.
Doomed
I've not seen it, but strikes me given she was said to be declaring over a week ago, that she doesn't want to do this. None of the rebels want this fight, which if they lose and don't quit the party, which they won't, sees them marginalised further, but their actions and his not resigning mean they have no choice. The ram has touched the wall.
I think if 20 MPs threatened to quit if Leadsom wins, the response of many tory members would be
'do you promise?'
Leadsom can still win if she can learn from these early clusterf8cks, develop a proper team and come up with a decent programme.
The Tories have a majority of 12......I know Andrea describes herself as an 'optimist' - but there's a difference between 'optimism' and 'delusion'.....
She was certainly optimistic with her cv. and delusional if she thought pointing out that Mrs May was childless was going to do her any good.
Perhaps her dark arts handlers think so.
As someone pointed out, the most despicable bit about the whole interview was where she actually commented on how she thought May might feel about not having any children.
May said all this herself in the Mail days before.
Theresa May has spoken for the first time about her and husband Philip’s heartbreak at not being able to have children.
In the most candid and intimate interview she has ever given, the Home Secretary revealed how they sought expert advice – and told of their sadness at discovering it would never happen.
She indeed did mean that, loathsome character that she is, but The Times decided to put the boot in, unnecessarily.
If she was stupid enough to say it, people really can't complain that the newspaper reported it.
I mean, looking at it another way, suppose Leadsom hadn't brought up the stuff about her family, and had stuck to the economy instead. (though I half suspect she didn't do that because she was afraid she'd be asked about her CV!).
If that had happened and the headline had been "Understanding the economy gives me edge on May - Leadsom", would anyone in their wildest dreams be complaining about that - even though Leadsom hadn't actually used the word "edge"?
So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be nonges minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic supportf what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
If the Leave case is a good one, it would win a second referendum.
But their winning points (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) have been admitted as 'mistake' and misunderstanding. They would not win a second referendum.
I doubt that, but the risk is why no Tory PM would survive suggesting one.
It requires a swing of less than 2% to reverse the referendum. Leave won it on two massive lies, which were retracted within hours of the vote being known. Some Leavers will be feeling tricked when they see that the NHS is not getting a massive infusion of money.
Well have declared and irreversibly on the way out before there's any backlash on that. A second referendum would need to be sooner rather than later to prevent Brexit, and ain't no one donating their body and government to that idea. The Tories eont and labour won't, and they're the only ones who can win.
If this is Eagle launching her leadership, she is making Leadsom look impressively polished.
She has the charisma of wet lettuce. As someone said, she is not even the best candidate in her family.
So what neither do May or Leadsom have much charisma either. Corbyn's son and brother, hairdresser, plumber or window cleaner would probably do a better job than him. Eagle is only at a point to launch for the leadership because Labour have now fallen that low
Andrea Leadsom was under mounting pressure to reveal her financial affairs last night, after she failed to meet a self-imposed deadline for publishing her tax return.
The former banker had said she would release details of her tax affairs yesterday – four days after Tory leadership rival Theresa May published four years’ worth of hers.
But the plan was dropped at the last minute, and without a new date being set. A source insisted there was no problem, saying: ‘We have not fixed a date, but it won’t be long.’
The delay will heighten speculation the energy minister has ‘something to hide’.
There does seem to be a problem with her tax return - otherwise it would be published by now. She might try to get away with only publishing the latest year in heavily summarised form but it won't wash. I think it might well be a ticking bomb.
At least it will move the debate on from the mothering edge.
Good news for Labour if they can force Corbyn to seek nominations, he probably wouldn't get enough. Good news for May as well if Labour put themselves back on the path to election winning rather than ideological purity.
When you say the "Commonwealth" , do you mean the "white" Commonwealth [ otherwise, known as the "Old" Commonwealth ] or the entire Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is composed of mainly Republics. Take out your rose tinted spectacles.
They still all have represenative democracy, the common law and the rule of law. They nearly all speak English either as a first languagem an official language or a defacto official language. Basically politically they all play Rugby Union wheras the EU dosent even keep to the rules of Rugby league.
It is not a centralised organisation like the EU and no one will be forced into anything.
The fact is that I could, without any prior knowledge of the place, land in India or even Zimbabwe, comminicate with anyone educated, have the ability to competently find myself housing and work (in terms of being capable of doing the application, understsnding how contractual issues work - not employment laws for immigrants). I would be in an environment where the basic framework of life is the same - yes even in Zimbabwe. And in time off I could join a cricket club :-)
That is not the case anywhere in the EU except RoI, Malta and Cyprus.
The argument about Labour rules on nominations shows how ridiculous and ill thought through the rules of their party have become. It seems perfectly logical that he should be required to have nominations (assuming that he isn't automatically disqualified by a vote of no-confidence in his leadership). The rules require leadership candidates to demonstrate a measure of MP support, so it doesn't make sense for this to not be required of a sitting leader.
However, it is perverse that he is required to get 51 nominations to get on a ballot as leader for an election that would be conducted under exactly the same rules (other than nominations) if he were not leader. So if he was struggling to get 51 nominations, but could get, say, 45 nominations, then he could resign as leader and restand.
She indeed did mean that, loathsome character that she is, but The Times decided to put the boot in, unnecessarily.
If she was stupid enough to say it, people really can't complain that the newspaper reported it.
I mean, looking at it another way, suppose Leadsom hadn't brought up the stuff about her family, and had stuck to the economy instead. (though I half suspect she didn't do that because she was afraid she'd be asked about her CV!).
If that had happened and the headline had been "Understanding the economy gives me edge on May - Leadsom", would anyone in their wildest dreams be complaining about that - even though Leadsom hadn't actually used the word "edge"?
The argument about Labour rules on nominations shows how ridiculous and ill thought through the rules of their party have become. It seems perfectly logical that he should be required to have nominations (assuming that he isn't automatically disqualified by a vote of no-confidence in his leadership). The rules require leadership candidates to demonstrate a measure of MP support, so it doesn't make sense for this to not be required of a sitting leader.
However, it is perverse that he is required to get 51 nominations to get on a ballot as leader for an election that would be conducted under exactly the same rules (other than nominations) if he were not leader. So if he was struggling to get 51 nominations, but could get, say, 45 nominations, then he could resign as leader and restand.
A party that cannot even run itself cannot be allowed to run the country,
Andrea Leadsom was under mounting pressure to reveal her financial affairs last night, after she failed to meet a self-imposed deadline for publishing her tax return.
The former banker had said she would release details of her tax affairs yesterday – four days after Tory leadership rival Theresa May published four years’ worth of hers.
But the plan was dropped at the last minute, and without a new date being set. A source insisted there was no problem, saying: ‘We have not fixed a date, but it won’t be long.’
The delay will heighten speculation the energy minister has ‘something to hide’.
There does seem to be a problem with her tax return - otherwise it would be published by now. She might try to get away with only publishing the latest year in heavily summarised form but it won't wash. I think it might well be a ticking bomb.
At least it will move the debate on from the mothering edge.
It could be that he tax return is totally boring and has nothing of any interest at all. In such circumstances they might be thinking that it makes sense to let a head of frothing outrage build up before release.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic support to bring into action, and the other parties will be options for people to choose to prevent. Now, the ld position woukd be a hard sell even for many remainers but they're free to try it. There is the question of what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
If the Leave case is a good one, it would win a second referendum.
But their winning points (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) have been admitted as 'mistake' and misunderstanding. They would not win a second referendum.
Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin, for the same reason the Lib Dems won the Winchester by-election more convincingly.
Australia's centre-right Coalition has now won their election 8 days after polls closed as PM Malcolm Turnbull declares victory and opposition Labor leader Bill Shorten phoned him to concede. However the LNP may still be short of a majority, it has 74 seats which is still short of the 76 needed for a majority but it now has 3 independents supporting it on confidence and supply which takes it over the line. Labor is on 66 seats with 5 still in doubt.
Much work to be done though, on Thursday ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowered Australia's credit rating outlook from stable to negative, warning the country could lose its AAA rating unless it undertook budget repair. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36757307
It could be that he tax return is totally boring and has nothing of any interest at all. In such circumstances they might be thinking that it makes sense to let a head of frothing outrage build up before release.
She missed her own deadline. If it's boring, the only thing it reveals is she can't be trusted to do what she says.
@SamCoatesTimes: Definitely think that of all Labour voices on TV this morning, Ed Balls clearly the best qualified and has most vision for the leadership...
@juliamacfarlane: This Ed Balls talking a lot of sense, he should consider a career in politics #Peston
She indeed did mean that, loathsome character that she is, but The Times decided to put the boot in, unnecessarily.
If she was stupid enough to say it, people really can't complain that the newspaper reported it.
I mean, looking at it another way, suppose Leadsom hadn't brought up the stuff about her family, and had stuck to the economy instead. (though I half suspect she didn't do that because she was afraid she'd be asked about her CV!).
If that had happened and the headline had been "Understanding the economy gives me edge on May - Leadsom", would anyone in their wildest dreams be complaining about that - even though Leadsom hadn't actually used the word "edge"?
Well put
BTW, what is her basis for arguing that May has no understanding of the economy? She did spend nearly twenty years working in financial roles, including 6 years at the Bank of England. (some might argue that being there from 1977-83 is probably pretty good experience for what we might face in the next few years!)
It could be that he tax return is totally boring and has nothing of any interest at all. In such circumstances they might be thinking that it makes sense to let a head of frothing outrage build up before release.
She missed her own deadline. If it's boring, the only thing it reveals is she can't be trusted to do what she says.
Sounds like a plan...
No, she changed her mind and is now only willing to show Tory MPs in private (although that position is a few days old now, and may have changed)
@breeallegretti: Warsi to Lab MPs: "I'm really sick of doing your job - it shouldn't be for Tory backbenchers to be holding their own gov to account" #Peston
Tom Newton Dunn: IDS claims Tory conspiracy to get Andrea Leadsom. Tells @pestononsunday there is "a real black ops operation to denigrate her reputation”
Rupert Myers: The "black ops" involve getting Andrea Leadsom to massage her CV, give accurate but damaging quotes & deny them
I think Corbyn genuinely doesn't feel under pressure - just frustration.
It looks to me that the plotters in the Shadow cabinet led by Hilary Benn took action because a) they feared an early election defeat and b) Corbyn's apparently lack lustre performance in the referendum campaign gave them an excuse to move against him.
They miscalculated because a) it looks as if there won't be an early election, b) Corbyn has been strengthened by Chilcott and some of the plotters have been diminished, c) critically, there isn't an alternate election winning leader waiting in the wings and c) Corbyn has resisted the pressure, confident he will win if challenged.
When Eagle loses to Corbyn, they will be back to square one. The responsibility for potentially destroying the Labour Party over the perceived poor leadership qualities of Corbyn, and undermining the duty of the Opposition to hold the government to account, lies squarely with the plotters.
They should recognise they have lost and fold their hand. There aren't great policy differences (except Trident which they can't do anything about) so the best should rejoin the Shadow Cabinet and take the fight to the Tories.
I am on holiday in Majorca at the moment and for the 3rd time in 3 years am completely bemused by the complete lack of working Internet near the Med. anyway I have been using the enforced time offline to come up with a list of why May will be a good PM.
1. I will once again have a PM older than me which feels like the natural order of things.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic support to bring into action, and the other parties will be options for people to choose to prevent. Now, the ld position woukd be a hard sell even for many remainers but they're free to try it. There is the question of what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
If the Leave case is a good one, it would win a second referendum.
But their winning points (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) have been admitted as 'mistake' and misunderstanding. They would not win a second referendum.
Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin, for the same reason the Lib Dems won the Winchester by-election more convincingly.
If there is a second referendum I think I'll offer you a wager.
I am on holiday in Majorca at the moment and for the 3rd time in 3 years am completely bemused by the complete lack of working Internet near the Med. anyway I have been using the enforced time offline to come up with a list of why May will be a good PM.
1. I will once again have a PM older than me which feels like the natural order of things.
....
It's a work in progress.
I remember being in the in arse end of nowhere in Monument Valley and the only radio I could get was patchy crackly NPR local broadcast of Navaho chanting. It went on for HOURS.
In the Sahara, at least there was talk radio I couldn't understand a word of.
If anyone thinks I am going to try to correct that infelicitous use of completely In that last post they have no idea how frustrating such a poor connection can be.
Andrea Leadsom was under mounting pressure to reveal her financial affairs last night, after she failed to meet a self-imposed deadline for publishing her tax return.
The former banker had said she would release details of her tax affairs yesterday – four days after Tory leadership rival Theresa May published four years’ worth of hers.
But the plan was dropped at the last minute, and without a new date being set. A source insisted there was no problem, saying: ‘We have not fixed a date, but it won’t be long.’
The delay will heighten speculation the energy minister has ‘something to hide’.
There does seem to be a problem with her tax return - otherwise it would be published by now. She might try to get away with only publishing the latest year in heavily summarised form but it won't wash. I think it might well be a ticking bomb.
At least it will move the debate on from the mothering edge.
It could be that he tax return is totally boring and has nothing of any interest at all. In such circumstances they might be thinking that it makes sense to let a head of frothing outrage build up before release.
Could be. But if it's boring why not publish when the others did a couple of weeks ago?
I am on holiday in Majorca at the moment and for the 3rd time in 3 years am completely bemused by the complete lack of working Internet near the Med. anyway I have been using the enforced time offline to come up with a list of why May will be a good PM.
1. I will once again have a PM older than me which feels like the natural order of things.
Tom Newton Dunn: IDS claims Tory conspiracy to get Andrea Leadsom. Tells @pestononsunday there is "a real black ops operation to denigrate her reputation”
I confess that where some people are red rags to a bull at any mention of 'establishment', making it a useful strategy for any candidate to pitch as the anti-establishment vote, I'm similarly inclined in opposition when people start talking about conspiracies just because they or their favoured person is opposed.
My gods, you mean people oppose your candidate and are seeking to undermine them? This is unprecedented in the history of politics, certainly isn't something you've ever done and can never be reasonable even when the criticisms are proven justifiable!
Of course, sometimes conspiracies are real. But so rarely in so sinister a way that I feel safe mocking such talk. It's just another lazy whinge tactic. May's mob will have their own lazy approaches, but hopefully can avoid this one though.
Australia's centre-right Coalition has now won their election 8 days after polls closed as PM Malcolm Turnbull declares victory and opposition Labor leader Bill Shorten phoned him to concede. However the LNP may still be short of a majority, it has 74 seats which is still short of the 76 needed for a majority but it now has 3 independents supporting it on confidence and supply which takes it over the line. Labor is on 66 seats with 5 still in doubt.
Much work to be done though, on Thursday ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowered Australia's credit rating outlook from stable to negative, warning the country could lose its AAA rating unless it undertook budget repair. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36757307
It looks as if the Coalition will finish with 76 seats.
I am on holiday in Majorca at the moment and for the 3rd time in 3 years am completely bemused by the complete lack of working Internet near the Med. anyway I have been using the enforced time offline to come up with a list of why May will be a good PM.
1. I will once again have a PM older than me which feels like the natural order of things.
@SamCoatesTimes: Definitely think that of all Labour voices on TV this morning, Ed Balls clearly the best qualified and has most vision for the leadership...
@juliamacfarlane: This Ed Balls talking a lot of sense, he should consider a career in politics #Peston
If anyone thinks I am going to try to correct that infelicitous use of completely In that last post they have no idea how frustrating such a poor connection can be.
Try popping into Puerta de Pollensa. all the good hotels on the "Pine Walk" have good broadband. Not sure about Soller, visiting soon!
I think Corbyn genuinely doesn't feel under pressure - just frustration.
It looks to me that the plotters in the Shadow cabinet led by Hilary Benn took action because a) they feared an early election defeat and b) Corbyn's apparently lack lustre performance in the referendum campaign gave them an excuse to move against him.
They miscalculated because a) it looks as if there won't be an early election, b) Corbyn has been strengthened by Chilcott and some of the plotters have been diminished, c) critically, there isn't an alternate election winning leader waiting in the wings and c) Corbyn has resisted the pressure, confident he will win if challenged.
When Eagle loses to Corbyn, they will be back to square one. The responsibility for potentially destroying the Labour Party over the perceived poor leadership qualities of Corbyn, and undermining the duty of the Opposition to hold the government to account, lies squarely with the plotters.
They should recognise they have lost and fold their hand. There aren't great policy differences (except Trident which they can't do anything about) so the best should rejoin the Shadow Cabinet and take the fight to the Tories.
I think Corbyn genuinely doesn't feel under pressure - just frustration.
It looks to me that the plotters in the Shadow cabinet led by Hilary Benn took action because a) they feared an early election defeat and b) Corbyn's apparently lack lustre performance in the referendum campaign gave them an excuse to move against him.
They miscalculated because a) it looks as if there won't be an early election, b) Corbyn has been strengthened by Chilcott and some of the plotters have been diminished, c) critically, there isn't an alternate election winning leader waiting in the wings and c) Corbyn has resisted the pressure, confident he will win if challenged.
When Eagle loses to Corbyn, they will be back to square one. The responsibility for potentially destroying the Labour Party over the perceived poor leadership qualities of Corbyn, and undermining the duty of the Opposition to hold the government to account, lies squarely with the plotters.
They should recognise they have lost and fold their hand. There aren't great policy differences (except Trident which they can't do anything about) so the best should rejoin the Shadow Cabinet and take the fight to the Tories.
Andrea Leadsom was under mounting pressure to reveal her financial affairs last night, after she failed to meet a self-imposed deadline for publishing her tax return.
The former banker had said she would release details of her tax affairs yesterday – four days after Tory leadership rival Theresa May published four years’ worth of hers.
But the plan was dropped at the last minute, and without a new date being set. A source insisted there was no problem, saying: ‘We have not fixed a date, but it won’t be long.’
The delay will heighten speculation the energy minister has ‘something to hide’.
There does seem to be a problem with her tax return - otherwise it would be published by now. She might try to get away with only publishing the latest year in heavily summarised form but it won't wash. I think it might well be a ticking bomb.
At least it will move the debate on from the mothering edge.
It could be that he tax return is totally boring and has nothing of any interest at all. In such circumstances they might be thinking that it makes sense to let a head of frothing outrage build up before release.
Could be. But if it's boring why not publish when the others did a couple of weeks ago?
My guess is that a) she got pushed into it by Marr - her initial response was clearly intended to play for time, but Marr quickly got her to yes or no, and b) she imagined it would only be last year's. May responded by publishing the last four years, as Cameron had done previously. Once Leadsom realised it would have to be the past four years, she started rowing back - on Monday she said she would only publish if she got to the final two. When she got to the final two it was reported that she had shifted again and wouldn't be making them public.
On this last point - either the source got this wrong (I definitely saw it, but a lot of people seem to be ignoring it) - or it suits the Mail et al. to continue to pin her to her original promise. Which, since it was made on live TV, is not unreasonable.
"Obama quizzed the leaders of the EU's two main institution, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, in private talks about what trade terms Britain could expect and how soon a deal could be cut to reassure markets, officials present at the meeting said.
QUICK SETTLEMENT
"Obama was quite keen to push for a quick settlement of Brexit," a European official said. "Both Tusk and Juncker took him on a pedagogic route and stressed it is important to keep the remaining 27 (EU states) united. If we go superfast, we could lose that unity.""
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
Hmmm - left-winger Surby batting for right-winger Leadsom. It's a puzzler.
I think Corbyn genuinely doesn't feel under pressure - just frustration.
It looks to me that the plotters in the Shadow cabinet led by Hilary Benn took action because a) they feared an early election defeat and b) Corbyn's apparently lack lustre performance in the referendum campaign gave them an excuse to move against him.
They miscalculated because a) it looks as if there won't be an early election, b) Corbyn has been strengthened by Chilcott and some of the plotters have been diminished, c) critically, there isn't an alternate election winning leader waiting in the wings and c) Corbyn has resisted the pressure, confident he will win if challenged.
When Eagle loses to Corbyn, they will be back to square one. The responsibility for potentially destroying the Labour Party over the perceived poor leadership qualities of Corbyn, and undermining the duty of the Opposition to hold the government to account, lies squarely with the plotters.
They should recognise they have lost and fold their hand. There aren't great policy differences (except Trident which they can't do anything about) so the best should rejoin the Shadow Cabinet and take the fight to the Tories.
Comments
First it was Show us the Transcript
Then it was Show us MORE of the Transcript
Now Guido is just making stuff up.
As part of an open question on what advantages Leadsom had over May she said i) optimism and ii) family.
Sylvester then perfectly appropriately followed up on what Leadsom meant by 'family'.....so this horsefeathers that Leadsom 'didn't bring it up, but was answering a question' is just that - horsefeathers.....
The Commonwealth is composed of mainly Republics. Take out your rose tinted spectacles.
'do you promise?'
Leadsom can still win if she can learn from these early clusterf8cks, develop a proper team and come up with a decent programme.
This is a middle distance race, and not a sprint.
Both he, and Arron banks, seem to prefer "direct democracy"
Scary
You think the 130 leavers will fall in behind Dudley do nothing May? as the months tick by, zero gets done, the remainers angle for a further referenda and UKIP scream betrayal? think again.
Perhaps her dark arts handlers think so.
Doomed
Brave....
IF Harold Wilson is correct, that is an eternity
Andrea Leadsom was under mounting pressure to reveal her financial affairs last night, after she failed to meet a self-imposed deadline for publishing her tax return.
The former banker had said she would release details of her tax affairs yesterday – four days after Tory leadership rival Theresa May published four years’ worth of hers.
But the plan was dropped at the last minute, and without a new date being set. A source insisted there was no problem, saying: ‘We have not fixed a date, but it won’t be long.’
The delay will heighten speculation the energy minister has ‘something to hide’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3681715/Did-Andrea-Leadsom-REALLY-help-Bank-England-boss-Barings-crisis-Fresh-doubts-raised-one-Tory-hopeful-s-career.htm
UKIP screaming betrayal is more possible, and Tory ructions, depending on what may goes for. With a small majority she too will have enough troublemakers.
How to unite the party...
Oh dear, oh dear. Try living in the 21st century. Or even the late 20th century. The Empire died a long time ago.
If the Commonwealth was really meaningful, we would not impose immigration rules on their citizens. Or perhaps you mean Canada, Australia and New Zealand and exclude India and Pakistan?
And we know she will do it, as she did with her tax returns.
oh, wait...
Theresa May has spoken for the first time about her and husband Philip’s heartbreak at not being able to have children.
In the most candid and intimate interview she has ever given, the Home Secretary revealed how they sought expert advice – and told of their sadness at discovering it would never happen.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671725/We-affected-not-having-children-coped-Exclusive-interview-Theresa-reveals-softer-steely-favourite-PM-says-EU-chiefs-talk-UK-Brexit.html#ixzz4DzovmPHW
I mean, looking at it another way, suppose Leadsom hadn't brought up the stuff about her family, and had stuck to the economy instead. (though I half suspect she didn't do that because she was afraid she'd be asked about her CV!).
If that had happened and the headline had been "Understanding the economy gives me edge on May - Leadsom", would anyone in their wildest dreams be complaining about that - even though Leadsom hadn't actually used the word "edge"?
At least it will move the debate on from the mothering edge.
@janinegibson: Is there anything more soothing than a politician on telly telling us to calm down?
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/752064922985590784
It is not a centralised organisation like the EU and no one will be forced into anything.
The fact is that I could, without any prior knowledge of the place, land in India or even Zimbabwe, comminicate with anyone educated, have the ability to competently find myself housing and work (in terms of being capable of doing the application, understsnding how contractual issues work - not employment laws for immigrants). I would be in an environment where the basic framework of life is the same - yes even in Zimbabwe. And in time off I could join a cricket club :-)
That is not the case anywhere in the EU except RoI, Malta and Cyprus.
However, it is perverse that he is required to get 51 nominations to get on a ballot as leader for an election that would be conducted under exactly the same rules (other than nominations) if he were not leader. So if he was struggling to get 51 nominations, but could get, say, 45 nominations, then he could resign as leader and restand.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/who-would-be-in-theresa-mays-cabinet-a7128516.html
Much work to be done though, on Thursday ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowered Australia's credit rating outlook from stable to negative, warning the country could lose its AAA rating unless it undertook budget repair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36757307
Sounds like a plan...
@juliamacfarlane: This Ed Balls talking a lot of sense, he should consider a career in politics #Peston
@breeallegretti: Warsi to Lab MPs: "I'm really sick of doing your job - it shouldn't be for Tory backbenchers to be holding their own gov to account" #Peston
Rupert Myers: The "black ops" involve getting Andrea Leadsom to massage her CV, give accurate but damaging quotes & deny them
It looks to me that the plotters in the Shadow cabinet led by Hilary Benn took action because a) they feared an early election defeat and b) Corbyn's apparently lack lustre performance in the referendum campaign gave them an excuse to move against him.
They miscalculated because a) it looks as if there won't be an early election, b) Corbyn has been strengthened by Chilcott and some of the plotters have been diminished, c) critically, there isn't an alternate election winning leader waiting in the wings and c) Corbyn has resisted the pressure, confident he will win if challenged.
When Eagle loses to Corbyn, they will be back to square one. The responsibility for potentially destroying the Labour Party over the perceived poor leadership qualities of Corbyn, and undermining the duty of the Opposition to hold the government to account, lies squarely with the plotters.
They should recognise they have lost and fold their hand. There aren't great policy differences (except Trident which they can't do anything about) so the best should rejoin the Shadow Cabinet and take the fight to the Tories.
1. I will once again have a PM older than me which feels like the natural order of things.
....
It's a work in progress.
I remember being in the in arse end of nowhere in Monument Valley and the only radio I could get was patchy crackly NPR local broadcast of Navaho chanting. It went on for HOURS.
In the Sahara, at least there was talk radio I couldn't understand a word of.
My gods, you mean people oppose your candidate and are seeking to undermine them? This is unprecedented in the history of politics, certainly isn't something you've ever done and can never be reasonable even when the criticisms are proven justifiable!
Of course, sometimes conspiracies are real. But so rarely in so sinister a way that I feel safe mocking such talk. It's just another lazy whinge tactic. May's mob will have their own lazy approaches, but hopefully can avoid this one though.
That's my free tip of the day to all PBers.
On this last point - either the source got this wrong (I definitely saw it, but a lot of people seem to be ignoring it) - or it suits the Mail et al. to continue to pin her to her original promise. Which, since it was made on live TV, is not unreasonable.
"Obama quizzed the leaders of the EU's two main institution, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, in private talks about what trade terms Britain could expect and how soon a deal could be cut to reassure markets, officials present at the meeting said.
QUICK SETTLEMENT
"Obama was quite keen to push for a quick settlement of Brexit," a European official said. "Both Tusk and Juncker took him on a pedagogic route and stressed it is important to keep the remaining 27 (EU states) united. If we go superfast, we could lose that unity.""
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nato-idUKKCN0ZP0CA
Sauce for the goose and all that.