''they hate the EU and immigration so much they go for the emotional jugular ( 80 million Turks tomorrow) and fail to come up with a coherent plan themselves.''
Then again, the EU is an organisation that is soon to grant visa free travel to islamist Turkey, whilst at the same time imposing visas on free, democratic western Nato cornerstone Britain.
How is that sustainable? how is it logical? how is it defensible? how is it anything other that complete lunacy?
They are proposing a visa waiver. It would apply to all countries without a specific deal with the EU. It's up to us whether we accept the deal the EU proposes.
Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.
She doesn't need to call votes of no confidence in herself to call an election.
Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM on PB. But all things considered I think she's doing quite well. What ever you think of the Hinckley and Grammar schools moves they are absolutely not dithering. They are the opposite of dithering. They are the expending of significant political capital to fight powerful vested interests including sections of her own party. Putting the Three Brexiteers in charge of Brexit isn't dithering. Sacking figures as substantial as Osborne and Gove isn't dithering. Deciding to rule out a second referendum and to leave both the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market isn't dithering. Answering simply " Yes " to the Nuclear button question isn't dithering. The briefing Heathrow expansion is being brought back from the long grass via free vote isn't dithering. In fact all the evidence is she knows she may well be one of the most consequential PM's since WW2 and she's determned to decide some of those consequences herself.
I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
Then there is the utterly sui generis nature of the situation which makes any conventional assessment of May pointless. Firstly we've just not only abandoned but reversed 500 years of consistent Foriegn Policy. ( Maximise Free Trade, Prevent a single power dominating Europe ) but we've achieved it in a radical way. Brexit was achieved by popular revolution and non parliamentary means. If you add together the scale of the policy change and the way it was achieved Brexit looks rather, erm, European. ' British ' politics is traditionally about holding the Iron Throne. Now that May sits on it is it any wonder she's disconcerted ? She holds the Iron Throne precisely because power seems to be shifting elsewhere.
"Dithers" is nonsense. A sensible review of a questionable project.. To say no immediately to the Chinese was going to be bad, but without a review, infinitely worse
Your relocation from Cameron's fundament to that of May seems to have been seamless. Congratulations!
One can only hope that at some point you emerge, tapeworm-like, from Sturgeon's.
Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM on PB. But all things considered I think she's doing quite well. What ever you think of the Hinckley and Grammar schools moves they are absolutely not dithering. They are the opposite of dithering. They are the expending of significant political capital to fight powerful vested interests including sections of her own party. Putting the Three Brexiteers in charge of Brexit isn't dithering. Sacking figures as substantial as Osborne and Gove isn't dithering. Deciding to rule out a second referendum and to leave both the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market isn't dithering. Answering simply " Yes " to the Nuclear button question isn't dithering. The briefing Heathrow expansion is being brought back from the long grass via free vote isn't dithering. In fact all the evidence is she knows she may well be one of the most consequential PM's since WW2 and she's determned to decide some of those consequences herself.
I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
"Dithers" is nonsense. A sensible review of a questionable project.. To say no immediately to the Chinese was going to be bad, but without a review, infinitely worse
Your relocation from Cameron's fundament to that of May seems to have been seamless. Congratulations!
One can only hope that at some point you emerge, tapeworm-like, from Sturgeon's.
Och, wee Luckybag1707 wants in on the action. Zinger.
Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM on PB. But all things considered I think she's doing quite well. What ever you think of the Hinckley and Grammar schools moves they are absolutely not dithering. They are the opposite of dithering. They are the expending of significant political capital to fight powerful vested interests including sections of her own party. Putting the Three Brexiteers in charge of Brexit isn't dithering. Sacking figures as substantial as Osborne and Gove isn't dithering. Deciding to rule out a second referendum and to leave both the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market isn't dithering. Answering simply " Yes " to the Nuclear button question isn't dithering. The briefing Heathrow expansion is being brought back from the long grass via free vote isn't dithering. In fact all the evidence is she knows she may well be one of the most consequential PM's since WW2 and she's determned to decide some of those consequences herself.
I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.
As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.
She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
He won in 92. It was only after 18 years of Tory one party rule facing Tony Blair that he lost.
Lost doesn't quite cover it. 165 seats. An unmatched result, that even Corbyn would be ashamed of. A catastrophe from which the Tories are still yet to fully recover.
Corbyn will get less seats than Major, especially if there are fair boundaries. That Major was starting from a higher watermark just shows how well Major and Cameron did previously and how bad Miliband and Kinnock did.
Plus of course Europe divisions, the bastards, 18 years of Tory one party rule, Tony Blair and a boundary review all had an influence in the 165 seats too.
''She can't call an election to validate her Brexit strategy until she has one. ''
You would think, wouldn;t you, that any person wanting the position of Prime Minister would have a Brexit strategy.....????
but apparently not. Theresa is 'driving' according to Rudd. And she has firmly decided so far to take us precisely nowhere.
We're having a hard Brexit with a soft centre. Or a soft Brexit that has distinctly hard characteristics.
May is a vacillating fudger. As I have said on here many times, the candidate UKIP would have chosen to keep them in business.
UKIP exist to fight Postmodernity and Globalisation. UKIP will remain in healthy business what ever May does.
I am not so sure. Brexit is an existential threat to UKIP. Also the UKIP leadership contest has potential to alter the course of the party.
How would James's UKIP be any different to May's Tories?
No party has a right to exist. Not UKIP, not Labour nor my own LibDems. Neither for that matter the Conservatives, who look like Titans at the moment, but only because of the Liliputian nature of the rest.
I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
I think the charge of dithering stands at the moment but the key date for this will be the Autumn Statement at the end of November. If that includes a strategic plan for infrastructure that includes decisions on Heathrow, house building, HS2, Hinckley C and other matters it will have been worth the wait. Not all of those decisions need to be positive ones (Hinckley C being the most obvious candidate) but where they are negative there needs to be clear, well planned alternatives which address what the perceived issue is.
On Brexit I agree that a willingness to walk away from the Single Market is our best chance of remaining in it. A calculated and apparent indifference to the consequences of a Hard Brexit makes a compromise more likely. I think it is wrong to assume that Boris is off piste in this strategy, he may well be implementing it.
If the UK stops buying cars from Germany (or anywhere else in the EU) where is it going to get them from? In reality won't we end up buying the same cars at higher prices?
If the UK stops buying cars from Germany (or anywhere else in the EU) where is it going to get them from? In reality won't we end up buying the same cars at higher prices?
Try Mazda, much better cars anyway.. with German cars you are paying a lot of money for the badge.
I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.
As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.
She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
I think you've forgotten the context of Majors selection as Tory leader. Thatcher was removed for one primary reason, she was going to kill the Maastricht treaty. Looking at what happened afterwards, with the disaster that has befallen the southern EU states, It do look like a disaster that he was PM.
It's argueable that we might be in a very different EU environment had it not been for Maastricht.
Wasn't it her pig-headedness over the poll tax?
Many of the day guard post war Conservatives wanted people to think that, but look at the personalities who really drove it behind the scenes. Hestletine, Howe, Hurd et al. The real truth of it was that this was the successful takeover bid of the the professional political class, that Blair cemented into place in 1997.
Historically, it will probably be seen as the moment where the political process moved away from representation of the people to representation of itself and its own values.
Interesting article Alistair on what drives the May government. Given she has stated the next election will be in 2020, an election which given the current state of Labour she should win, she will probably be PM until around 2025, maybe even longer. That would make her the second longest serving post-war Tory PM after Thatcher and the third longest serving post-war PM overall after Thatcher and Blair so it is important we gain an understanding of what she stands for
Then there is the view western democracies have entered a period of " negative sovereignty ". Big shifts in culture, technology and socioeconomics mean it's impossible to construct anything anymore and voters can only agree on stopping things. I think it's too early to tell as all such theories tend to be too neat. However as a working hypothesis it's not a bad one and Brexit so far appears to fit it. So again May's critics assume the lack of a Brexit masterplan is a huge failing. In fact it might be realpolitik
Of course the Conservatives always say they're on the side of the poor and vulnerable. That's the kind of thing people want to hear. Cameron adopted the same posture, but in quantitative terms those on lowest incomes were among the hardest hit by the coalition government's policies. From what I've seen so far I very much doubt it will be different under the present government.
Yes the bottom decile was hit the hardest (apart from the top decile). But that is inevitable if you are of the belief that the legacy welfare system was poorly designed and created the wrong incentives.
What you are arguing for is a ratchet in absolute benefit payments which seems entirely contrary to democratic principles
May strikes me as being no fool. She seems to have learned the lesson of Europe.
Heath failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU. Thatcher ultimately failed in part because she was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU. Major failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU. Cameron failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
May seems to have read the famous Einstein quote about the definition of insanity and realises that there is a right side and a wrong side on matters relating to the EU. Brexit means Brexit. At last a Tory PM who is not being turned insane by the Grimer Wormtongues of her party.
You seem to be operating on the assumption that as long as we Brexit she will have no problem as that is being on the right side. But as we have seen some Tories have already claimed option X or y will not be true Brexit, so she could still be on the wrong side. It is more complicated than her accepting Brexit. For a start, that doesn't show any amazing judgement on her part, she was a remainer but political reality is what it is, if Cameron had been able to study on he'd say the same thing now. Until we know what she can get and how the awkward squad react to less than perfection, praising her simply for recognising poiliticalky the country crossed the rubicon with the referendum just shows basic common sense, not an aversion to the worm tongues.
Heck, she was not an eu fanatic but supported remaining, isn't that worse than someone who at least adored the eu? I jest, but even as a leaver praising her simply knowing g Brexit means Brexit feels like praising a toddler for not drawing on the walls. She was the best choice and has enough positives to be great, but some are putting the bar a bit low I think.
You don't have kids right?
Stopping toddlers drawing on walls is a real achievement and well worth praising them for!
I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.
As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.
She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
I think you've forgotten the context of Majors selection as Tory leader. Thatcher was removed for one primary reason, she was going to kill the Maastricht treaty. Looking at what happened afterwards, with the disaster that has befallen the southern EU states, It do look like a disaster that he was PM.
It's argueable that we might be in a very different EU environment had it not been for Maastricht.
Wasn't it her pig-headedness over the poll tax?
Many of the day guard post war Conservatives wanted people to think that, but look at the personalities who really drove it behind the scenes. Hestletine, Howe, Hurd et al. The real truth of it was that this was the successful takeover bid of the the professional political class, that Blair cemented into place in 1997.
Historically, it will probably be seen as the moment where the political process moved away from representation of the people to representation of itself and its own values.
The Poll Tax was a symptom of how Maggie had lost her political acumen. If ever a policy failed to represent the people it was that. The near destruction of Scottish Toryism for example.
Sure, she had lost contacy with the British electorate on many other issues too, including over Europe. New Labour won a massive majority in 97 with an unashamedly pro-EU manifesto for example.
Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM ose consequences herself.
I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
They say OK.
The Eurocrats probably say fine, those who export stuff to us will take a very different view.
From a goods point of view, we can happily buy British-made cars in place of European ones. Aston Martin and McLaren are over the moon that their cars just got 10% cheaper than the European competition in the big markets of China, the US and Middle East. Rolls Royce probably just pocket the 10% as extra profit, no-one buying a Rolls asks the price anyway.
I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.
As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.
She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
He won in 92. It was only after 18 years of Tory one party rule facing Tony Blair that he lost.
Lost doesn't quite cover it. 165 seats. An unmatched result, that even Corbyn would be ashamed of. A catastrophe from which the Tories are still yet to fully recover.
Corbyn will get less seats than Major, especially if there are fair boundaries. That Major was starting from a higher watermark just shows how well Major and Cameron did previously and how bad Miliband and Kinnock did.
Plus of course Europe divisions, the bastards, 18 years of Tory one party rule, Tony Blair and a boundary review all had an influence in the 165 seats too.
He's unlikely to get less seats.
It is possible that might get fewer...
Only if you use a grammar rule that was made based on a personal preference of someone from the eighteenth century. It is neither the modern real world usage nor a permanent historical one either.
Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM ose consequences herself.
I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
They say OK.
The Eurocrats probably say fine, those who export stuff to us will take a very different view.
From a goods point of view, we can happily buy British-made cars in place of European ones. Aston Martin and McLaren are over the moon that their cars just got 10% cheaper than the European competition in the big markets of China, the US and Middle East. Rolls Royce probably just pocket the 10% as extra profit, no-one buying a Rolls asks the price anyway.
The pound is down about 10%, right? If that's the case then they didn't get 10% cheaper unless all their components were also sourced from the UK.
I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.
As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.
She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
He won in 92. It was only after 18 years of Tory one party rule facing Tony Blair that he lost.
Lost doesn't quite cover it. 165 seats. An unmatched result, that even Corbyn would be ashamed of. A catastrophe from which the Tories are still yet to fully recover.
Corbyn will get less seats than Major, especially if there are fair boundaries. That Major was starting from a higher watermark just shows how well Major and Cameron did previously and how bad Miliband and Kinnock did.
Plus of course Europe divisions, the bastards, 18 years of Tory one party rule, Tony Blair and a boundary review all had an influence in the 165 seats too.
He's unlikely to get less seats.
It is possible that might get fewer...
Only if you use a grammar rule that was made based on a personal preference of someone from the eighteenth century. It is neither the modern real world usage nor a permanent historical one either.
The difference between size and number is a useful concept.
The British electorate didn't pay any attention to the claimed wishes of significant areas of British business, so why is it assumed that EU electorates will?
Odd that I should have to go into bat for a Conservative PM ose consequences herself.
I agree. The only exception is that there's no apparent actual direction on Brexit, and since she's being so deliberate about everything else the best explanation is that she's made a conscious, considered decision to let the barge drift out to sea.
Agreed it is deliberate and quite clever.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
They say OK.
The Eurocrats probably say fine, those who export stuff to us will take a very different view.
From a goods point of view, we can happily buy British-made cars in place of European ones. Aston Martin and McLaren are over the moon that their cars just got 10% cheaper than the European competition in the big markets of China, the US and Middle East. Rolls Royce probably just pocket the 10% as extra profit, no-one buying a Rolls asks the price anyway.
So we all buy Nissans and hope all the parts are made in the UK too.
Mr. Charles, indeed. There's a substantial difference between complaining you have fewer qualified people or less qualified people turning up to job interviews.
The British electorate didn't pay any attention to the claimed wishes of significant areas of British business, so why is it assumed that EU electorates will?
Exactly. As we now know, economic interests are not always paramount in voters' minds.
I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities. But given what she is up against that will be enough. I guess she is avoiding calling a GE because she knows that will involve developing a Brexit position - something that will inevitably tear the Tories apart.
As can be deduced from my thread header, I haven't made up my mind about Theresa May. She could yet go one of two ways. If she can channel John Major 1992, she could prove a capable Prime Minister on the subjects that matter. She could, however, become a less accomplished Gordon Brown.
She has a good instinct for who she needs to appeal to (unlike David Cameron, who saw modernisation and moderation as one and the same thing). So far she seems less sure footed about what policies for this base will be successful.
So, May his a choice of being the new Major or the new Brown? How inspirational!
Major was a good PM, brought down by Europe and the bastards. If May can unite her party around her vision for Brexit then being a Major would be a very good thing.
Major was a risible catastrophe who fully deserved his unprecedented drubbing in the polls.
He won in 92. It was only after 18 years of Tory one party rule facing Tony Blair that he lost.
Lost doesn't quite cover it. 165 seats. An unmatched result, that even Corbyn would be ashamed of. A catastrophe from which the Tories are still yet to fully recover.
Corbyn will get less seats than Major, especially if there are fair boundaries. That Major was starting from a higher watermark just shows how well Major and Cameron did previously and how bad Miliband and Kinnock did.
Plus of course Europe divisions, the bastards, 18 years of Tory one party rule, Tony Blair and a boundary review all had an influence in the 165 seats too.
He's unlikely to get less seats.
It is possible that might get fewer...
Only if you use a grammar rule that was made based on a personal preference of someone from the eighteenth century. It is neither the modern real world usage nor a permanent historical one either.
The difference between size and number is a useful concept.
People only make the mistake because the two words have the same antonym.
The British electorate didn't pay any attention to the claimed wishes of significant areas of British business, so why is it assumed that EU electorates will?
Exactly. As we now know, economic interests are not always paramount in voters' minds.
Whose economic interests? It is in my employer's interest to pay me as little as possible, but hardly in mine. The Stuart Rose case for the EU in a nutshell.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Yep - giving into the UK will not be a vote winner.
It will be all change anyway so what current leaders say is not really relevant, looks like Mrs Merkel wont be re-elected and Hollande=LOL
You think Merkel is going to lose? Who will win in her place?
Well she got thrashed in the recent elections, or her party did.. and that doesn't augur well. I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
" This control-freakery is very reminiscent of Gordon Brown and represents a stark contrast with David Cameron, who conspicuously gave his ministers their head. "
There was plenty of control-freakery in Cameron's government - that it came from Osborne rather than from Cameron actually made it worse.
" The Notting Hill set now sit on the backbenches and are no doubt discontented. With a government majority of 12, they will strike whenever they think appropriate. They might even do so over the Prime Minister’s flagship policy on grammar schools. "
Few things could be more advantageous to May than public school ToryBoys supporting metropolitan leftists against swing voters in BlueLand.
No it doesn't because the funding pledge was part of Vote Leave's pledge for the 350mn as well as the NHS and a suggestion energy VAT could be scrapped amongst others.
The British electorate didn't pay any attention to the claimed wishes of significant areas of British business, so why is it assumed that EU electorates will?
Exactly. As we now know, economic interests are not always paramount in voters' minds.
Whose economic interests? It is in my employer's interest to pay me as little as possible, but hardly in mine. The Stuart Rose case for the EU in a nutshell.
If your employer works on the basis of always paying you as little as possible, it will continue to do so whether we are in or out of the EU. If we leave the single market that may well mean lower wages for many. We'll have to see.
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
Yes, she should know the European big cheeses but otoh I'm not a great fan of pub quiz interviewing in general. I don't really care if my MP knows the price of a pint of milk.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
They say OK.
The Eurocrats probably say fine, those who export stuff to us will take a very different view.
From a goods point of view, we can happily buy British-made cars in place of European ones. Aston Martin and McLaren are over the moon that their cars just got 10% cheaper than the European competition in the big markets of China, the US and Middle East. Rolls Royce probably just pocket the 10% as extra profit, no-one buying a Rolls asks the price anyway.
So we all buy Nissans and hope all the parts are made in the UK too.
Most of the added value in car production is from the manufacturing process, but yes there may be some parts sourced from elsewhere. The car industry at the more regular end of the market is very efficient and requires rapid supply lines, we need to make sure that we don't hold up parts from overseas in customs as part of the process, but that is entirely up to the UK government to sort out.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Yep - giving into the UK will not be a vote winner.
It will be all change anyway so what current leaders say is not really relevant, looks like Mrs Merkel wont be re-elected and Hollande=LOL
You think Merkel is going to lose? Who will win in her place?
Well she got thrashed in the recent elections, or her party did.. and that doesn't augur well. I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
Local elections vs national elections are different. Plus under their voting system there is no chance of the AfD forming a government so even if her party loses support it is still polling at the front of a Grand Coalition.
I find her deeply unimpressive. A mediocrity leading mediocrities.
Out of curiosity which politicians do you not regard as deeply unimpressive or a mediocrity leading mediocrities ?
I don't like Gove's politics, but I don't think he's mediocre; ditto Nicola Sturgeon. On the Labour side, I'd go for Jon Cruddas. But there really aren't many in any party.
The British electorate didn't pay any attention to the claimed wishes of significant areas of British business, so why is it assumed that EU electorates will?
Exactly. As we now know, economic interests are not always paramount in voters' minds.
Whose economic interests? It is in my employer's interest to pay me as little as possible, but hardly in mine. The Stuart Rose case for the EU in a nutshell.
The Stuart Rose case is that with the EU you are more likely to be employed. The difference between wages that you think are low and no wages at all.
Clearly things are afoot in the Tory party this morning to get Theresa moving...
If we invoke Article 50 now, we only really get 18 (maybe more like 16) months of negotiation, because of the the number of EU elections in 2017. For anything not completely off the shelf, that's not really going to work.
The nice thing about Article 50 is that it only requires a QMV vote to ratify the agreement between the EU and the exiting country. (Which means that you effectively only need agreement from France, Germany, Spain and Italy.) If we leave fully and then go back to try and negotiate something new, then it requires unanimity.
For that reason, it is much, much better that we get something agreed in the two year window. Beginning the process with Francois Hollande in power, only for him to depart and be replaced by someone completely different (as is almost inevitable) seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
The British electorate didn't pay any attention to the claimed wishes of significant areas of British business, so why is it assumed that EU electorates will?
Exactly. As we now know, economic interests are not always paramount in voters' minds.
Whose economic interests? It is in my employer's interest to pay me as little as possible, but hardly in mine. The Stuart Rose case for the EU in a nutshell.
The Stuart Rose case is that with the EU you are more likely to be employed. The difference between wages that you think are low and no wages at all.
The whole Establishment position was that a Brexit vote would cause a recession and we would enter negotiations with the EU in a weak position desperate for a deal, any deal, to get us out of the mess.
I think May has more confidence in our nation and is deliberately buying time doing absolutely nothing. If August's data starts a trend we are not only doing OK but potentially entering a Brexit Boom.
If that continues then May will enter negotiations with the EU from a position of much greater strength.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary. I suspect May wants to stay in the Single Market outside the EU and with some form of border controls. The EU does not want to give us that. If we enter negotiations weak they will not give us that.
Paradoxically the best chance then to stay in the Single Market is to be able and prepared to leave it.
The art of negotiation is to let the other side think you are prepared to walk away without a deal if necessary.
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
They say OK.
The Eurocrats probably say fine, those who export stuff to us will take a very different view.
From a goods point of view, we can happily buy British-made cars in place of European ones. Aston Martin and McLaren are over the moon that their cars just got 10% cheaper than the European competition in the big markets of China, the US and Middle East. Rolls Royce probably just pocket the 10% as extra profit, no-one buying a Rolls asks the price anyway.
So we all buy Nissans and hope all the parts are made in the UK too.
Most of the added value in car production is from the manufacturing process, but yes there may be some parts sourced from elsewhere. The car industry at the more regular end of the market is very efficient and requires rapid supply lines, we need to make sure that we don't hold up parts from overseas in customs as part of the process, but that is entirely up to the UK government to sort out.
Great - so there's some tariffs we won't apply. And there'll be more. And as soon as interest rates go up, imports get cheaper so tariffs on imports are less of an issue anyway.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Yep - giving into the UK will not be a vote winner.
It will be all change anyway so what current leaders say is not really relevant, looks like Mrs Merkel wont be re-elected and Hollande=LOL
You think Merkel is going to lose? Who will win in her place?
Well she got thrashed in the recent elections, or her party did.. and that doesn't augur well. I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
Local elections vs national elections are different. Plus under their voting system there is no chance of the AfD forming a government so even if her party loses support it is still polling at the front of a Grand Coalition.
The only way the AfD could be in government would be as the junior partner in a CDU/CDU coalition. Which would require Mrs Merkel to get something in the mid 30s, and the AfD something in the mid to high teens.
The issue is that Mrs Merkel would - in this scenario - have the pick of coalition partners. She could head up a new Grand Coalition; or should could get into bed with the FPD and the Greens.
The British electorate didn't pay any attention to the claimed wishes of significant areas of British business, so why is it assumed that EU electorates will?
Exactly. As we now know, economic interests are not always paramount in voters' minds.
Whose economic interests? It is in my employer's interest to pay me as little as possible, but hardly in mine. The Stuart Rose case for the EU in a nutshell.
The Stuart Rose case is that with the EU you are more likely to be employed. The difference between wages that you think are low and no wages at all.
You may disagree, but it's a coherent one.
That's not what he said, though.
Fair enough, I didn't check. It what he should have said. But I guess that would be dismissed as fearmongering. People can't cope with probabilities. It has to be binary. If you say fewer jobs, fewer opportunities and less prosperity that is interpreted as no jobs, complete despair and extreme poverty.
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
It's a silly game of gotcha.
Her views on policy matter (to an extent). where she knows who the vice president if tajikistan is doesn't. In a situation where she needed to know (assuming she was in power) she would be briefed on the facts.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Yep - giving into the UK will not be a vote winner.
It will be all change anyway so what current leaders say is not really relevant, looks like Mrs Merkel wont be re-elected and Hollande=LOL
You think Merkel is going to lose? Who will win in her place?
Well she got thrashed in the recent elections, or her party did.. and that doesn't augur well. I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
Local elections vs national elections are different. Plus under their voting system there is no chance of the AfD forming a government so even if her party loses support it is still polling at the front of a Grand Coalition.
The only way the AfD could be in government would be as the junior partner in a CDU/CDU coalition. Which would require Mrs Merkel to get something in the mid 30s, and the AfD something in the mid to high teens.
The issue is that Mrs Merkel would - in this scenario - have the pick of coalition partners. She could head up a new Grand Coalition; or should could get into bed with the FPD and the Greens.
If the AfD took lots of votes off the CDU, the CDU may get rid of Merkel anyway, the CSU may also put forward a replacement candidate
Flexing of muscles from Boris Johnson, who reckons he should be PM, not Theresa May. He's going to be more difficult to handle than David Davis, I think. An FM sinecure in exchange for selling whatever appears from the Bexit murk to the public may not be a sufficient prize for his generous ego.
Don't know about anyone else but I am enjoying the Paralympics more than the olympics. We are doing very well and through. To the table tennis semis and we have just beaten the reigning Olympic champions Germany in the basketball. We retain 2nd position in the medals table this morning.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Yep - giving into the UK will not be a vote winner.
It will be all change anyway so what current leaders say is not really relevant, looks like Mrs Merkel wont be re-elected and Hollande=LOL
You think Merkel is going to lose? Who will win in her place?
Well she got thrashed in the recent elections, or her party did.. and that doesn't augur well. I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
Local elections vs national elections are different. Plus under their voting system there is no chance of the AfD forming a government so even if her party loses support it is still polling at the front of a Grand Coalition.
The only way the AfD could be in government would be as the junior partner in a CDU/CDU coalition. Which would require Mrs Merkel to get something in the mid 30s, and the AfD something in the mid to high teens.
The issue is that Mrs Merkel would - in this scenario - have the pick of coalition partners. She could head up a new Grand Coalition; or should could get into bed with the FPD and the Greens.
I think the most likely result is a CDU/CSU/SPD/Green coalition. The current grand coalition might not have enough seats to form a stable coalition and I don't think the FPD want to go back in coalition with Merkel after last time.
Yes the bottom decile was hit the hardest (apart from the top decile). But that is inevitable if you are of the belief that the legacy welfare system was poorly designed and created the wrong incentives.
What you are arguing for is a ratchet in absolute benefit payments which seems entirely contrary to democratic principles
I simply made a statement of fact, which you seem to agree with!
Flexing of muscles from Boris Johnson, who reckons he should be PM, not Theresa May. He's going to be more difficult to handle than David Davis, I think. An FM sinecure in exchange for selling whatever appears from the Bexit murk to the public may not be a sufficient prize for his generous ego.
Not sure about that. Davis actually believes what he says. Boris will do and say what is best for Boris. He has very flexible convictions.
Flexing of muscles from Boris Johnson, who reckons he should be PM, not Theresa May. He's going to be more difficult to handle than David Davis, I think. An FM sinecure in exchange for selling whatever appears from the Bexit murk to the public may not be a sufficient prize for his generous ego.
Not sure about that. Davis actually believes what he says. Boris will do and say what is best for Boris. He has very flexible convictions.
Boris has said he is not up to the job of being PM
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
It's a silly game of gotcha.
Her views on policy matter (to an extent). where she knows who the vice president if tajikistan is doesn't. In a situation where she needed to know (assuming she was in power) she would be briefed on the facts.
Being Foreign Secretary is about building and maintaining good working relationships with your international colleagues. That involves knowing who they are!
She should be engaged in conversations with her political friends in France - but she clearly isn't.
Yes, it might feel like a silly game to some - but to me it is about being fully up to speed with your brief. Knowing who they key players are - even when you are in opposition.
She clearly doesn't. She has been over-promoted and is clearly not up to the task.
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
It's a silly game of gotcha.
Her views on policy matter (to an extent). where she knows who the vice president if tajikistan is doesn't. In a situation where she needed to know (assuming she was in power) she would be briefed on the facts.
Being Foreign Secretary is about building and maintaining good working relationships with your international colleagues. That involves knowing who they are!
She should be engaged in conversations with her political friends in France - but she clearly isn't.
Yes, it might feel like a silly game to some - but to me it is about being fully up to speed with your brief. Knowing who they key players are - even when you are in opposition.
She clearly doesn't. She has been over-promoted and is clearly not up to the task.
To be fair, she has had a number of different briefs in the past year!
May strikes me as being no fool. She seems to have learned the lesson of Europe.
Heath failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU. Thatcher ultimately failed in part because she was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU. Major failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU. Cameron failed because he was on the wrong side of the argument about the EU.
May seems to have read the famous Einstein quote about the definition of insanity and realises that there is a right side and a wrong side on matters relating to the EU. Brexit means Brexit. At last a Tory PM who is not being turned insane by the Grimer Wormtongues of her party.
You seem to be operating on the assumption that as long as we Brexit she will have no problem as that is being on the right side. But as we have seen some Tories have already claimed option X or y will not be true Brexit, so she could still be on the wrong side. It is more complicated than her accepting Brexit. For a start, that doesn't show any amazing judgement on her part, she was a remainer but political reality is what it is, if Cameron had been able to study on he'd say the same thing now. Until we know what she can get and how the awkward squad react to less than perfection, praising her simply for recognising poiliticalky the country crossed the rubicon with the referendum just shows basic common sense, not an aversion to the worm tongues.
Heck, she was not an eu fanatic but supported remaining, isn't that worse than someone who at least adored the eu? I jest, but even as a leaver praising her simply knowing g Brexit means Brexit feels like praising a toddler for not drawing on the walls. She was the best choice and has enough positives to be great, but some are putting the bar a bit low I think.
You don't have kids right?
Stopping toddlers drawing on walls is a real achievement and well worth praising them for!
Guilty as charged. I shall substitute for it being like praising an adult for not drawing on the walls, that is something they should now not to do without any effort or judgement.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Yep - giving into the UK will not be a vote winner.
It will be all change anyway so what current leaders say is not really relevant, looks like Mrs Merkel wont be re-elected and Hollande=LOL
You think Merkel is going to lose? Who will win in her place?
Well she got thrashed in the recent elections, or her party did.. and that doesn't augur well. I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
Local elections vs national elections are different. Plus under their voting system there is no chance of the AfD forming a government so even if her party loses support it is still polling at the front of a Grand Coalition.
The only way the AfD could be in government would be as the junior partner in a CDU/CDU coalition. Which would require Mrs Merkel to get something in the mid 30s, and the AfD something in the mid to high teens.
The issue is that Mrs Merkel would - in this scenario - have the pick of coalition partners. She could head up a new Grand Coalition; or should could get into bed with the FPD and the Greens.
I think the most likely result is a CDU/CSU/SPD/Green coalition. The current grand coalition might not have enough seats to form a stable coalition and I don't think the FPD want to go back in coalition with Merkel after last time.
Merkel is discovering the consequences of burning bridges!
The people I know in the SPD are desperate to go back into opposition (or rather, see another Grand Coalition as a way of continuing to bleed support to Die Linke and the Greens). So, I'm not convinced that a Grand Coalition will happen unless there is no other option.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Yep - giving into the UK will not be a vote winner.
It will be all change anyway so what current leaders say is not really relevant, looks like Mrs Merkel wont be re-elected and Hollande=LOL
You think Merkel is going to lose? Who will win in her place?
Well she got thrashed in the recent elections, or her party did.. and that doesn't augur well. I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
Local elections vs national elections are different. Plus under their voting system there is no chance of the AfD forming a government so even if her party loses support it is still polling at the front of a Grand Coalition.
The only way the AfD could be in government would be as the junior partner in a CDU/CDU coalition. Which would require Mrs Merkel to get something in the mid 30s, and the AfD something in the mid to high teens.
The issue is that Mrs Merkel would - in this scenario - have the pick of coalition partners. She could head up a new Grand Coalition; or should could get into bed with the FPD and the Greens.
If the AfD took lots of votes off the CDU, the CDU may get rid of Merkel anyway, the CSU may also put forward a replacement candidate
My point was simply that the only viable coalition partner for the AfD is the CDU/CSU. And it's hard for that grouping to get above 50%. Perhaps if the FPD missed the 5% threshold by a whisker, but otherwise I just don't see it happening.
Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.
No need for a no confidence vote just a vote that 'This house votes that there should be an early election'. The opposition parties having called for one can't add won't vote against that.
Yes lot of people forgetting that a new act overrules a previous one.
In fact no reason why it couldnt be slipped in as an amendment on the grammar schools bill
''they hate the EU and immigration so much they go for the emotional jugular ( 80 million Turks tomorrow) and fail to come up with a coherent plan themselves.''
Then again, the EU is an organisation that is soon to grant visa free travel to islamist Turkey, whilst at the same time imposing visas on free, democratic western Nato cornerstone Britain.
How is that sustainable? how is it logical? how is it defensible? how is it anything other that complete lunacy?
They are proposing a visa waiver. It would apply to all countries without a specific deal with the EU. It's up to us whether we accept the deal the EU proposes.
And would apply to us even if we stay in the EU as we are not in schenegen
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
It's a silly game of gotcha.
Her views on policy matter (to an extent). where she knows who the vice president if tajikistan is doesn't. In a situation where she needed to know (assuming she was in power) she would be briefed on the facts.
Being Foreign Secretary is about building and maintaining good working relationships with your international colleagues. That involves knowing who they are!
She should be engaged in conversations with her political friends in France - but she clearly isn't.
Yes, it might feel like a silly game to some - but to me it is about being fully up to speed with your brief. Knowing who they key players are - even when you are in opposition.
She clearly doesn't. She has been over-promoted and is clearly not up to the task.
To be fair, she has had a number of different briefs in the past year!
Yes - but she was going on to do a major interview with a big broadcaster. She should have been on top of the key issues. She wasn't and played the victim card. Pathetic.
''they hate the EU and immigration so much they go for the emotional jugular ( 80 million Turks tomorrow) and fail to come up with a coherent plan themselves.''
Then again, the EU is an organisation that is soon to grant visa free travel to islamist Turkey, whilst at the same time imposing visas on free, democratic western Nato cornerstone Britain.
How is that sustainable? how is it logical? how is it defensible? how is it anything other that complete lunacy?
They are proposing a visa waiver. It would apply to all countries without a specific deal with the EU. It's up to us whether we accept the deal the EU proposes.
And would apply to us even if we stay in the EU as we are not in schenegen
I doubt it. There'd be a waiver of the waiver. We're not the only non-Schengen member state.
Flexing of muscles from Boris Johnson, who reckons he should be PM, not Theresa May. He's going to be more difficult to handle than David Davis, I think. An FM sinecure in exchange for selling whatever appears from the Bexit murk to the public may not be a sufficient prize for his generous ego.
Not sure about that. Davis actually believes what he says. Boris will do and say what is best for Boris. He has very flexible convictions.
Boris has said he is not up to the job of being PM
Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.
Corbyn has already called for an early general election. If May said she wanted one, would Labour really vote to keep her government in office?
I am not aware that Corbyn has said that - though an election was demanded by a member of his Shadow Cabinet.
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
It's a silly game of gotcha.
Her views on policy matter (to an extent). where she knows who the vice president if tajikistan is doesn't. In a situation where she needed to know (assuming she was in power) she would be briefed on the facts.
Being Foreign Secretary is about building and maintaining good working relationships with your international colleagues. That involves knowing who they are!
She should be engaged in conversations with her political friends in France - but she clearly isn't.
Yes, it might feel like a silly game to some - but to me it is about being fully up to speed with your brief. Knowing who they key players are - even when you are in opposition.
She clearly doesn't. She has been over-promoted and is clearly not up to the task.
To be fair, she has had a number of different briefs in the past year!
Yes - but she was going on to do a major interview with a big broadcaster. She should have been on top of the key issues. She wasn't and played the victim card. Pathetic.
Mrs Bucket was hilariously bad - I had the TV on quietly whilst reading the papers. Caught my attention the moment she kicked off. I was glued. Everything about her tone is awful - that whole Don't You Know Who I Am manner when she doesn't know who anyone is...
Dr. Spyn, outrageous to expect the Shadow Foreign Secretary to know who the French Foreign Secretary is, They'll be expecting her to be able to point to France on a map next.
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
It's a silly game of gotcha.
Her views on policy matter (to an extent). where she knows who the vice president if tajikistan is doesn't. In a situation where she needed to know (assuming she was in power) she would be briefed on the facts.
Being Foreign Secretary is about building and maintaining good working relationships with your international colleagues. That involves knowing who they are!
She should be engaged in conversations with her political friends in France - but she clearly isn't.
Yes, it might feel like a silly game to some - but to me it is about being fully up to speed with your brief. Knowing who they key players are - even when you are in opposition.
She clearly doesn't. She has been over-promoted and is clearly not up to the task.
To be fair, she has had a number of different briefs in the past year!
Yes - but she was going on to do a major interview with a big broadcaster. She should have been on top of the key issues. She wasn't and played the victim card. Pathetic.
She does seem one of the most prominent examples of modern politicians seeking a defence against more aggressive, gotcha kind of interviewing, by seeking to go on the counter offensive. The ones who are really bad it make the mistake of being too aggressive in defence before the interviewers even press them that hard, they come out like they are being attacked before an attack is made (so almost a pre-counter-offensive, if that makes any sense - they see to counter an offensive, before the offensive is made, while still maintaining it is a counter and not a pre-emptive strike).
Thornberry seems pretty bad at executing the defence (I recall Umunna, despite supposedly being slick, being similarly poor at it), often seeming offended rather than merely annoyed at an inverviewer.
Corbyn of course is a fan of this strategy, as his 'can we have a question on the NHS rant' showed, when there were much more effective ways of making his point.
Come to think of it Galloway of all people has been better at it on occasion, such as his reaction when Paxman really did ask a stupid bloody question about if he was proud to have defeated one of the few black women in parliament. His reaction was extreme annoyance, but it was on a question which deserved it.
Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.
Corbyn has already called for an early general election. If May said she wanted one, would Labour really vote to keep her government in office?
I am not aware that Corbyn has said that - though an election was demanded by a member of his Shadow Cabinet.
From the most unreliable member of his Shadow Cabinet infact:
Mr Corbyn said: "Of course there should be a general election. We have a new Prime Minister without a mandate, we have Brexit negotiations that are being undertaken without any authority other than the referendum which said people wanted ultimately to leave the European Union.
My point was simply that the only viable coalition partner for the AfD is the CDU/CSU. And it's hard for that grouping to get above 50%. Perhaps if the FPD missed the 5% threshold by a whisker, but otherwise I just don't see it happening.
I think that's right - and also the CDU sees the AfD as the enemy gnawing at their votes: their willingness to accept them as coalition partners is zero.
I notice that the Remoaners plan to flood Last Night of the Proms with thousands of EU flags was a resounding failure.
Was that a real plan, or somebody online suggesting it?
Money raised, thousands of flags provided, bigged up in the media:
' Anti-Brexit campaigners are planning to flood the Last Night Of The Proms with thousands of EU flags following a controversial fundraising campaign.
Some 60 backers have donated £1,175 on a Crowdfunder page to buy 5,000 blue EU flags which will be handed out at the annual event at the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday night. '
Clearly things are afoot in the Tory party this morning to get Theresa moving...
If we invoke Article 50 now, we only really get 18 (maybe more like 16) months of negotiation, because of the the number of EU elections in 2017. For anything not completely off the shelf, that's not really going to work.
The nice thing about Article 50 is that it only requires a QMV vote to ratify the agreement between the EU and the exiting country. (Which means that you effectively only need agreement from France, Germany, Spain and Italy.) If we leave fully and then go back to try and negotiate something new, then it requires unanimity.
For that reason, it is much, much better that we get something agreed in the two year window. Beginning the process with Francois Hollande in power, only for him to depart and be replaced by someone completely different (as is almost inevitable) seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
I was under the impression that EU trade deals are by QMV not unanimity.
Clearly things are afoot in the Tory party this morning to get Theresa moving...
If we invoke Article 50 now, we only really get 18 (maybe more like 16) months of negotiation, because of the the number of EU elections in 2017. For anything not completely off the shelf, that's not really going to work.
The nice thing about Article 50 is that it only requires a QMV vote to ratify the agreement between the EU and the exiting country. (Which means that you effectively only need agreement from France, Germany, Spain and Italy.) If we leave fully and then go back to try and negotiate something new, then it requires unanimity.
For that reason, it is much, much better that we get something agreed in the two year window. Beginning the process with Francois Hollande in power, only for him to depart and be replaced by someone completely different (as is almost inevitable) seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
I was under the impression that EU trade deals are by QMV not unanimity.
It depends if there is anything at all in the deal outside the competences of the EU then it requires unanimity. Which in practice means unanimity is required as comprehensive trade deals generally exceed the competences of the EU. See for a recent example the Dutch referendum on the trade deal with Ukraine. If the deal hadn't required unanimity, the Dutch would have been moot.
I notice that the Remoaners plan to flood Last Night of the Proms with thousands of EU flags was a resounding failure.
Was that a real plan, or somebody online suggesting it?
Money raised, thousands of flags provided, bigged up in the media:
' Anti-Brexit campaigners are planning to flood the Last Night Of The Proms with thousands of EU flags following a controversial fundraising campaign.
Some 60 backers have donated £1,175 on a Crowdfunder page to buy 5,000 blue EU flags which will be handed out at the annual event at the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday night. '
ICYMI - this is just superb long read. Some of the quotes are LOL in retrospect.
"Brian Montgomery: We’re trying to get a TV for the hold room—all we could find was this massive 30-inch TV on a cart with rabbit ears.
Rep. Adam Putnam: There was one van, maybe a press van, that was parked too close to the plane’s wing. I remember a Secret Service agent running down the aisle; they opened the back stairs, he ran down to move the truck. He never made it back on board. They didn’t wait for him.
Gordon Johndroe: You cannot hide a blue-and-white 747 that says “United States of America” across the top. You can’t move it secretly through the daylight. Where does local TV go when there’s a national emergency? They go out to their local military base. We’re watching ourselves land on local television. The announcer’s saying, “It appears Air Force One is landing. We don’t have any specific information whether the president was on board, but Air Force One was last seen leaving Sarasota.” The pool is looking at me like, “We can’t report this?”
Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.
No need for a no confidence vote just a vote that 'This house votes that there should be an early election'. The opposition parties having called for one can't add won't vote against that.
Yes lot of people forgetting that a new act overrules a previous one.
In fact no reason why it couldnt be slipped in as an amendment on the grammar schools bill
Actually there's no need for a new act, the existing act provides for an early election if the House of Commons (by a two-thirds vote) votes on a resolution providing for a date of a new election then the election is on that date.
The Lords have no involvement at all so can't delay the resolution. Nor does it need to go through to third reading etc. Can all be resolved in one day.
Fort the umpteenth time, she has virtually no chance of an early election, to call for two votes of no confidence in herself would make her a laughing stock and lead to probable defeat, loss of majority anyway and her resignation, the 2010 Parliament Act rules okay.
Corbyn has already called for an early general election. If May said she wanted one, would Labour really vote to keep her government in office?
I am not aware that Corbyn has said that - though an election was demanded by a member of his Shadow Cabinet.
Clearly things are afoot in the Tory party this morning to get Theresa moving...
If we invoke Article 50 now, we only really get 18 (maybe more like 16) months of negotiation, because of the the number of EU elections in 2017. For anything not completely off the shelf, that's not really going to work.
The nice thing about Article 50 is that it only requires a QMV vote to ratify the agreement between the EU and the exiting country. (Which means that you effectively only need agreement from France, Germany, Spain and Italy.) If we leave fully and then go back to try and negotiate something new, then it requires unanimity.
For that reason, it is much, much better that we get something agreed in the two year window. Beginning the process with Francois Hollande in power, only for him to depart and be replaced by someone completely different (as is almost inevitable) seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
I was under the impression that EU trade deals are by QMV not unanimity.
Under Article 50 the deal also requires the 'consent' of the European Parliament.
I'm unclear as to what this means, but I suspect as a starting point it would mean it'd need to carry a simple majority of MEPs.
One hopes this wouldn't be a major problem if it had carried with QMV in the European Council, but with Verhofstadht who knows.
Comments
Yep, and that's exactly what I think May is planning. We invoke Art 50 and tell the EU that there is no deal to do, we're having a 'hard' exit to WTO terms, and wish them well. Then wait, and see what those who have an €80bn trade surplus with us decide to do next.
It is possible that might get fewer...
How would James's UKIP be any different to May's Tories?
No party has a right to exist. Not UKIP, not Labour nor my own LibDems. Neither for that matter the Conservatives, who look like Titans at the moment, but only because of the Liliputian nature of the rest.
On Brexit I agree that a willingness to walk away from the Single Market is our best chance of remaining in it. A calculated and apparent indifference to the consequences of a Hard Brexit makes a compromise more likely. I think it is wrong to assume that Boris is off piste in this strategy, he may well be implementing it.
I'm not even sure an 'OK' as per Mr Southam's comment is sustainable from their side.
The default assumption of remainers is that Europe is a continent somehow at peace with itself and its geopolitical arrangements.
Have they seen the economic numbers? have they seen the polls? Have they seen what happened in an election in Merkel's backyard recently?
In short, do they read the news?
Dan Hodges nails it.
Historically, it will probably be seen as the moment where the political process moved away from representation of the people to representation of itself and its own values.
What you are arguing for is a ratchet in absolute benefit payments which seems entirely contrary to democratic principles
Stopping toddlers drawing on walls is a real achievement and well worth praising them for!
Sure, she had lost contacy with the British electorate on many other issues too, including over Europe. New Labour won a massive majority in 97 with an unashamedly pro-EU manifesto for example.
Boris is only doing what all politicians do when leaders fail to lead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37329153
From a goods point of view, we can happily buy British-made cars in place of European ones. Aston Martin and McLaren are over the moon that their cars just got 10% cheaper than the European competition in the big markets of China, the US and Middle East. Rolls Royce probably just pocket the 10% as extra profit, no-one buying a Rolls asks the price anyway.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/11/boris-johnson-backs-brexit-pressure-campaign-change-britain
I see Whittingdale wants A50 triggered soon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/10/theresa-may-should-invoke-article-50-within-weeks-says-john-whit/
Clearly things are afoot in the Tory party this morning to get Theresa moving...
https://twitter.com/SkyMurnaghan/status/774899527283187712
Doing her bit to keep Rudd out of the headlights.
I am no expert on German politics, but people I know in Germany say she is losing her popularity .... especially after the migrant issue
[I'm assuming she's shadow foreign secretary. Can't remember, to be honest. But then, it's not my job].
A couple of points:
" This control-freakery is very reminiscent of Gordon Brown and represents a stark contrast with David Cameron, who conspicuously gave his ministers their head. "
There was plenty of control-freakery in Cameron's government - that it came from Osborne rather than from Cameron actually made it worse.
" The Notting Hill set now sit on the backbenches and are no doubt discontented. With a government majority of 12, they will strike whenever they think appropriate. They might even do so over the Prime Minister’s flagship policy on grammar schools. "
Few things could be more advantageous to May than public school ToryBoys supporting metropolitan leftists against swing voters in BlueLand.
You may disagree, but it's a coherent one.
The nice thing about Article 50 is that it only requires a QMV vote to ratify the agreement between the EU and the exiting country. (Which means that you effectively only need agreement from France, Germany, Spain and Italy.) If we leave fully and then go back to try and negotiate something new, then it requires unanimity.
For that reason, it is much, much better that we get something agreed in the two year window. Beginning the process with Francois Hollande in power, only for him to depart and be replaced by someone completely different (as is almost inevitable) seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
The issue is that Mrs Merkel would - in this scenario - have the pick of coalition partners. She could head up a new Grand Coalition; or should could get into bed with the FPD and the Greens.
Her views on policy matter (to an extent). where she knows who the vice president if tajikistan is doesn't. In a situation where she needed to know (assuming she was in power) she would be briefed on the facts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/paralympics/rio-2016/medals/countries/great-britain-and-northern-ireland#great-britain-and-northern-ireland
Just a great shame this is not given wider coverage particularly on Sky who had several dedicated channels for Olympics a few weeks ago.
She should be engaged in conversations with her political friends in France - but she clearly isn't.
Yes, it might feel like a silly game to some - but to me it is about being fully up to speed with your brief. Knowing who they key players are - even when you are in opposition.
She clearly doesn't. She has been over-promoted and is clearly not up to the task.
http://order-order.com/2014/11/24/lady-nugees-walled-garden/
The people I know in the SPD are desperate to go back into opposition (or rather, see another Grand Coalition as a way of continuing to bleed support to Die Linke and the Greens). So, I'm not convinced that a Grand Coalition will happen unless there is no other option.
In fact no reason why it couldnt be slipped in as an amendment on the grammar schools bill
Thornberry seems pretty bad at executing the defence (I recall Umunna, despite supposedly being slick, being similarly poor at it), often seeming offended rather than merely annoyed at an inverviewer.
Corbyn of course is a fan of this strategy, as his 'can we have a question on the NHS rant' showed, when there were much more effective ways of making his point.
Come to think of it Galloway of all people has been better at it on occasion, such as his reaction when Paxman really did ask a stupid bloody question about if he was proud to have defeated one of the few black women in parliament. His reaction was extreme annoyance, but it was on a question which deserved it.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/77541/listen-jeremy-corbyn-calls-snap-general-election
Mr Corbyn said: "Of course there should be a general election. We have a new Prime Minister without a mandate, we have Brexit negotiations that are being undertaken without any authority other than the referendum which said people wanted ultimately to leave the European Union.
' Anti-Brexit campaigners are planning to flood the Last Night Of The Proms with thousands of EU flags following a controversial fundraising campaign.
Some 60 backers have donated £1,175 on a Crowdfunder page to buy 5,000 blue EU flags which will be handed out at the annual event at the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday night. '
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/last-night-of-the-proms-anti-brexit-fundraising-campaign-launched-to-flood-event-with-5000-eu-flags_uk_57d26c64e4b0ac5a02ddda89
What vapid bilge, a new Prime Minister reviewing two key policies that will effect the country for decades is dithering !
"Brian Montgomery: We’re trying to get a TV for the hold room—all we could find was this massive 30-inch TV on a cart with rabbit ears.
Rep. Adam Putnam: There was one van, maybe a press van, that was parked too close to the plane’s wing. I remember a Secret Service agent running down the aisle; they opened the back stairs, he ran down to move the truck. He never made it back on board. They didn’t wait for him.
Gordon Johndroe: You cannot hide a blue-and-white 747 that says “United States of America” across the top. You can’t move it secretly through the daylight. Where does local TV go when there’s a national emergency? They go out to their local military base. We’re watching ourselves land on local television. The announcer’s saying, “It appears Air Force One is landing. We don’t have any specific information whether the president was on board, but Air Force One was last seen leaving Sarasota.” The pool is looking at me like, “We can’t report this?”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-only-plane-in-the-sky-214230#ixzz4JwaXiI2Z
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
The Lords have no involvement at all so can't delay the resolution. Nor does it need to go through to third reading etc. Can all be resolved in one day.
I'm unclear as to what this means, but I suspect as a starting point it would mean it'd need to carry a simple majority of MEPs.
One hopes this wouldn't be a major problem if it had carried with QMV in the European Council, but with Verhofstadht who knows.
Yes was enjoyable.