Leicester are looking to be the team they were last season. Transfer window uncertainty is over and the post victory hangover has cleared. Two 3 nil victories in a row is quite a confidence booster.
It will be our (really quite decent) reserve in action on Tuesday in the League cup, though Chelsea are likely to field a lot of first teamers after Fridays poor performance. They are not using Kante well.
Islam Slimani is a fans favourite already. A quicker, younger Ibrahamovic style player who looked as if he had played with Vardy for years (he has with Mahrez). There is even a half serious discussion on the fans site as to whether "Allah Akbhar Slimani" that the Algerians sing should be adopted*!
Burnley were ok first half when they parked the bus, but after they conceded they were clueless. It is going to be a long season for them.
* Leicester's first goal was very multifaith: a Christian (Fuchs) cross and an Islam (Slimani) header.
Thought the way Mahrez, Vardy and Slumani were linking up boded well for another good season. Vardy's backheel flicks were a joy.
It is not obvious to me that Osborne is a master strategist. A majority in 2010 was the tories' to lose and they lost it. The omnishambles budget was a monumental own goal (I suppose you could argue that it was a fiscal and economic cockup rather than a strategic one). What were his strategic successes?
Osborne delivered at least two omnishambles budgets yet Cameron left him in the job.
Can anyone think of another CotE who delivered Budgets which disintegrated in the way Osborne's of 2012 and 2016 did ?
There have been previous Budgets which were later shown to be economic mistakes and previous Budgets which were later shown to be political mistakes.
But I can't remember any before Osborne's where they disintegrated within days.
Theresa May, it seems, couldn't resist twisting the knife as she dealt the blow. She seems to be a remarkably poor people manager. With a majority of 12, she can't afford to be alienating influential and able MPs, even if she doesn't trust them as far as she could throw them.
As @Casino_Royale notes, the government is weaker without George Osborne. One of the many ill effects of the Leave vote was to weaken the ability of the government considerably. But since Leavers are tired of experts, that is no doubt not a concern that troubles the winners.
Politics can get personal. But it's in the nature of politics that politicians do personal reconciliations when they need to.
I had very few good words to say about Osborne at the end of June. I am now open minded about him.
But he has to meet us Brexiters in the middle.
You willed the impoverishment of the quality of government in pursuit of an oddball obsession. Having achieved the second, you now repent of the first. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Whether you agree with the vote being held in the first place, or not, or the verdict, the referendum was lost by Remain fair and square, despite having every advantage. No matter which side ministers or MPs campaigned on the attention of all should now be focussed on forming the best Government possible to take the country forwards.
Nick Boles is a good model for Osborne to follow in this regard.
George Osborne would be a lunatic if, having become the hate figure of demented Leavers during the referendum campaign, he alllowed them to refresh their hatred of him by carrying the can for the almost inevitable failure of Brexit negotiations (at least, through the prism through which said demented Leavers would view it). This has to be the Leavers' party and they have to fail on their own terms.
Astonishingly, despite the prepublicity, they are terrified of taking control.
Brexit is Osborne's future, just as it is for all of the rest of us.
If he ever wants to be leader he has to play his part in shaping it. Hiding in the shadows before emerging with a smile to say 'told you so' might be good for the pundit circuit, or a single-issue backbencher, but not for an ambitious politician looking to the future. He can't be the anti Bill Cash.
None of the issues that underlay the vote, or, indeed, the result of the vote itself, are going to go away. He has to demonstrate that he now understands this and will engage with it to make it a success.
There is more than one version of "success"
To the Leadbangers, Hard Brexit followed by penury is success.
To others, rescuing the country from the smoking ruins of Hard Brexit would be success
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
Theresa May, it seems, couldn't resist twisting the knife as she dealt the blow. She seems to be a remarkably poor people manager. With a majority of 12, she can't afford to be alienating influential and able MPs, even if she doesn't trust them as far as she could throw them.
As @Casino_Royale notes, the government is weaker without George Osborne. One of the many ill effects of the Leave vote was to weaken the ability of the government considerably. But since Leavers are tired of experts, that is no doubt not a concern that troubles the winners.
Politics can get personal. But it's in the nature of politics that politicians do personal reconciliations when they need to.
I had very few good words to say about Osborne at the end of June. I am now open minded about him.
But he has to meet us Brexiters in the middle.
You willed the impoverishment of the quality of government in pursuit of an oddball obsession. Having achieved the second, you now repent of the first. You can't have your cake and eat it.
The "oddball obsession" that just carried the referendum? That one?
The "oddball obsession" that delivered the highest turnout for 24 years.
Haha Casino....wishful thinking indeed about Osbo becoming the Brexit man.
You are right Osbo is a strategist, but he is an opportunist and young. It is much more likely that he will cheer on the sidelines as the full horror of Brexit comes to pass, and, as the Tory party leadership implodes under a mixture of incompetence, ego, indecision, inability to deal with the unfolding crisis that are looming ahead.
Osbo will pick up the pieces then and be vindicated that he was right all along rather than having to take any crap from the likes of you and your rightwing ideological comrades. I would suggest Churchill is a better example for Osbo to draw on.
Brexit is Osborne's future, just as it is for all of the rest of us.
If he ever wants to be leader he has to play his part in shaping it. Hiding in the shadows before emerging with a smile to say 'told you so' might be good for the pundit circuit, or a single-issue backbencher, but not for an ambitious politician looking to the future. He can't be the anti Bill Cash.
None of the issues that underlay the vote, or, indeed, the result of the vote itself, are going to go away. He has to demonstrate that he now understands this and will engage with it to make it a success.
If tyson's scenario comes to pass - and it isn't impossible - it won't be another Tory to whom people turn. The Tory party as a whole is tied to the whole referendum/exit escapade and if it fails, they all go down with it.
I don't think that follows. If the alternative is worse, in this case, Corbyn's Labour, then the Tories will be re-elected.
if Tory voters from 2015 become disillusioned, they'll switch to UKIP, not to Corbyn's Labour.
It is not obvious to me that Osborne is a master strategist. A majority in 2010 was the tories' to lose and they lost it. The omnishambles budget was a monumental own goal (I suppose you could argue that it was a fiscal and economic cockup rather than a strategic one). What were his strategic successes?
Osborne delivered at least two omnishambles budgets yet Cameron left him in the job.
Indeed.
Though for me his last budget was the only real error - apart from constant tinkering of course - when IDS is schooling you in both politics and presentation, you're not a master strategist.
Being a master strategist, I suspect, is a bit like marketing - if people can see you running toward them with a big sign saying 'I'M A MASTER STRATEGIST' - you aren't one. Strategy depends upon subtlety - knowing when to hold back and when to deal the knockout blow. From everything we know about Osborne, he didn't do this. He was actually rather rude to everyone and made sure they knew they were his social inferiors.
In this regard he really is the heir to Mandelson, another 'master strategist'. Both exceedingly enamoured of money, influence, and international institutions, both enjoyed slithering around doing their best impression of Darth Vader, but when it came down to it, all either of them were doing was playing silly, ineffectual parlour games. In doing that, Osborne also utterly neglected his duty as Chancellor to put Britain's economy on a secure footing.
There is simply no question in 2016 to which Osborne is the answer. He's had it, and good riddance.
It was rather appropriate that Osborne was with Mandelson on an oligarch's yacht as the economy fell into recession in 2008.
Haha Casino....wishful thinking indeed about Osbo becoming the Brexit man.
You are right Osbo is a strategist, but he is an opportunist and young. It is much more likely that he will cheer on the sidelines as the full horror of Brexit comes to pass, and, as the Tory party leadership implodes under a mixture of incompetence, ego, indecision, inability to deal with the unfolding crisis that are looming ahead.
Osbo will pick up the pieces then and be vindicated that he was right all along rather than having to take any crap from the likes of you and your rightwing ideological comrades. I would suggest Churchill is a better example for Osbo to draw on.
Brexit is Osborne's future, just as it is for all of the rest of us.
If he ever wants to be leader he has to play his part in shaping it. Hiding in the shadows before emerging with a smile to say 'told you so' might be good for the pundit circuit, or a single-issue backbencher, but not for an ambitious politician looking to the future. He can't be the anti Bill Cash.
None of the issues that underlay the vote, or, indeed, the result of the vote itself, are going to go away. He has to demonstrate that he now understands this and will engage with it to make it a success.
If tyson's scenario comes to pass - and it isn't impossible - it won't be another Tory to whom people turn. The Tory party as a whole is tied to the whole referendum/exit escapade and if it fails, they all go down with it.
I don't think that follows. If the alternative is worse, in this case, Corbyn's Labour, then the Tories will be re-elected.
if Tory voters from 2015 become disillusioned, they'll switch to UKIP, not to Corbyn's Labour.
The worse that will happen for May is that she loses some votes to UKIP as Blair did to the LDs in 2005 but he still won anyway and I think the grammar schools policy, her emphasis on 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'control of our borders' shows she recognises she needs to do more to reassure such voters than Cameron did
Been saying this for a while. There is nowhere near enough talent in the government to allow George to go to waste. If we were cruising along in normal times it may be that his undoubted negatives would outweigh this but these are not normal times. May needs all the help she get.
I rather lack sympathy with this view. The government already makes apparently talented individuals very junior ministers, to keep potential critics quiet. I was mainly thinking of Rory Stewart and Jesse Norman.
I'm still concerned that cutting the H of C from 650 to 600 will further weaken Parliament; i.e., the payroll vote will continue unchanged in size.
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
Being a master strategist, I suspect, is a bit like marketing - if people can see you running toward them with a big sign saying 'I'M A MASTER STRATEGIST' - you aren't one. Strategy depends upon subtlety - knowing when to hold back and when to deal the knockout blow. From everything we know about Osborne, he didn't do this. He was actually rather rude to everyone and made sure they knew they were his social inferiors.
In this regard he really is the heir to Mandelson, another 'master strategist'. Both exceedingly enamoured of money, influence, and international institutions, both enjoyed slithering around doing their best impression of Darth Vader, but when it came down to it, all either of them were doing was playing silly, ineffectual parlour games. In doing that, Osborne also utterly neglected his duty as Chancellor to put Britain's economy on a secure footing.
There is simply no question in 2016 to which Osborne is the answer. He's had it, and good riddance.
It was rather appropriate that Osborne was with Mandelson on an oligarch's yacht as the economy fell into recession in 2008.
Scheming rather that doing his job.
In 2008 he was in opposition, scheming is a big part of the job.
Theresa May, it seems, couldn't resist twisting the knife as she dealt the blow. She seems to be a remarkably poor people manager. With a majority of 12, she can't afford to be alienating influential and able MPs, even if she doesn't trust them as far as she could throw them.
As @Casino_Royale notes, the government is weaker without George Osborne. One of the many ill effects of the Leave vote was to weaken the ability of the government considerably. But since Leavers are tired of experts, that is no doubt not a concern that troubles the winners.
Politics can get personal. But it's in the nature of politics that politicians do personal reconciliations when they need to.
I had very few good words to say about Osborne at the end of June. I am now open minded about him.
But he has to meet us Brexiters in the middle.
You willed the impoverishment of the quality of government in pursuit of an oddball obsession. Having achieved the second, you now repent of the first. You can't have your cake and eat it.
You are having a laugh right? The real oddball obsession is European Federalism. The only reason Remain got as much as 48% is by terrifying people. Euroscepticism has always had a reasonably big following, and Leave won over enough undecideds to make it across the line.
No-one willed the impoverishment of the quality of government. They willed us to leave the EU. In terms of quality of government Cameron is hardly a great loss.
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
Osborne won't be rewarded for gloating by the Tory party.
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
Being a master strategist, I suspect, is a bit like marketing - if people can see you running toward them with a big sign saying 'I'M A MASTER STRATEGIST' - you aren't one. Strategy depends upon subtlety - knowing when to hold back and when to deal the knockout blow. From everything we know about Osborne, he didn't do this. He was actually rather rude to everyone and made sure they knew they were his social inferiors.
In this regard he really is the heir to Mandelson, another 'master strategist'. Both exceedingly enamoured of money, influence, and international institutions, both enjoyed slithering around doing their best impression of Darth Vader, but when it came down to it, all either of them were doing was playing silly, ineffectual parlour games. In doing that, Osborne also utterly neglected his duty as Chancellor to put Britain's economy on a secure footing.
There is simply no question in 2016 to which Osborne is the answer. He's had it, and good riddance.
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
Hitchens has had some praise for May though over grammars. In fact she is the only PM I have ever read him have virtually anything positive to say about ever. He and Oborne despise Blair and Cameron and they reflect a generally much more positive line in the Mail towards the PM than her predecessor (in contrast to the Times)
Yes, May has the Mail, Sun and Telegraph on-side - the commentariat less so - we had a vote recently - did the commentariat win that?
She is undoutably going to be marmite in the way that Thatcher was. She is clearly far more right wing in a traditional way than the liberal 'wet' wing of the Tory party and the commontariat realised.
- if they had thought a little deeper, her finding the time to attend an Anglican Church every Sunday despite the time pressures of a great office of state was a huge giveaway.
So now they are alighting on every problem she fwces and every error she makes as it gives them hope that she may fall before all is lost - however in reality it is little more than wishful thinking. The unionists and sinn fein abstension gives her a real majority of about 40 and the opposition is heavily fractured and some of them are barred from voting on some issues.
The key is Cameron spent his first year trying to win over the Guardian, May has focused on the Mail. Which is why I expect May to outlast Dave as PM. May knows that to win an election you need to reassure your base first then reach out (plus the Mail's readership is more than that of the Guardian and Times combined), Cameron started off trying to reassure people who would never vote for him anyway thus he failed to win a majority initially in 2010 and when he really needed his base in and after the EU referendum in particular, the majority deserted him
The Conservative route to power always starts with reassuring Mail readers followed by winning over Sun readers.
Those who suggest alternate ways are often showing what they think of Mail and/or Sun readers.
Indeed and Sun readers are far closer to Mail readers than they are to Guardian readers
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
I read it, and ignored it.
I have learnt not to engage with Alastair when, sadly, he can't help but revert to a lower state of evolution.
Brexit is bigger than anyone's ego, and those that put their careers before their country in a vain attempt to save their personal reputation will not be rewarded for it.
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
Yes, May has the Mail, Sun and Telegraph on-side - the commentariat less so - we had a vote recently - did the commentariat win that?
She is undoutably going to be marmite in the way that Thatcher was. She is clearly far more right wing in a traditional way than the liberal 'wet' wing of the Tory party and the commontariat realised.
- if they had thought a little deeper, her finding the time to attend an Anglican Church every Sunday despite the time pressures of a great office of state was a huge giveaway.
So now they are alighting on every problem she fwces and every error she makes as it gives them hope that she may fall before all is lost - however in reality it is little more than wishful thinking. The unionists and sinn fein abstension gives her a real majority of about 40 and the opposition is heavily fractured and some of them are barred from voting on some issues.
The key is Cameron spent his first year trying to win over the Guardian, May has focused on the Mail. Which is why I expect May to outlast Dave as PM. May knows that to win an election you need to reassure your base first then reach out (plus the Mail's readership is more than that of the Guardian and Times combined), Cameron started off trying to reassure people who would never vote for him anyway thus he failed to win a majority initially in 2010 and when he really needed his base in and after the EU referendum in particular, the majority deserted him
To support your view. From early 2001, when he was just a hopeful parliamentary candidate, to spring 2004, by which time he was deputy chairman of his party, David Cameron wrote a series of fortnightly diaries .......in the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/Columnists/Archive/0,,649666,00.html
Yes, I think SamCam may also have had something to do with it, socially their circle was more likely to include Guardian readers I imagine than those who read the Mail
One good reason he failed to win a majority in 2010 and only scraped on un 2015 out of fear of the SNP being in official or unofficial?coalition with Labour.
I voted kipper in 2015 but will vote Tory in 2020 under May.
Theresa May, it seems, couldn't resist twisting the knife as she dealt the blow. She seems to be a remarkably poor people manager. With a majority of 12, she can't afford to be alienating influential and able MPs, even if she doesn't trust them as far as she could throw them.
As @Casino_Royale notes, the government is weaker without George Osborne. One of the many ill effects of the Leave vote was to weaken the ability of the government considerably. But since Leavers are tired of experts, that is no doubt not a concern that troubles the winners.
Politics can get personal. But it's in the nature of politics that politicians do personal reconciliations when they need to.
I had very few good words to say about Osborne at the end of June. I am now open minded about him.
But he has to meet us Brexiters in the middle.
You willed the impoverishment of the quality of government in pursuit of an oddball obsession. Having achieved the second, you now repent of the first. You can't have your cake and eat it.
You are having a laugh right? The real oddball obsession is European Federalism. The only reason Remain got as much as 48% is by terrifying people. Euroscepticism has always had a reasonably big following, and Leave won over enough undecideds to make it across the line.
No-one willed the impoverishment of the quality of government. They willed us to leave the EU. In terms of quality of government Cameron is hardly a great loss.
Neither Cameron nor Osborne represent any sort of loss of ability whatever. This is silly season stuff.
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
I read it, and ignored it.
I have learnt not to engage with Alastair when, sadly, he can't help but revert to a lower state of evolution.
Brexit is bigger than anyone's ego, and those that put their careers before their country in a vain attempt to save their personal reputation will not be rewarded for it.
Big politicians will recognise this.
Your entire pitch in this thread header consists of "I don't like or respect George Osborne but he could be convenient to my aims, even though he is diametrically opposed to them, so he jolly well should do as I tell him to". Can you not see that is a little optimistic?
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
I read it, and ignored it.
I have learnt not to engage with Alastair when, sadly, he can't help but revert to a lower state of evolution.
Brexit is bigger than anyone's ego, and those that put their careers before their country in a vain attempt to save their personal reputation will not be rewarded for it.
Big politicians will recognise this.
Your entire pitch in this thread header consists of "I don't like or respect George Osborne but he could be convenient to my aims, even though he is diametrically opposed to them, so he jolly well should do as I tell him to". Can you not see that is a little optimistic?
If it suits Osborne in his goal of becoming PM he'll do it, if it doesn't he won't. It will be up to Mrs May to reopen the door for him, if she wants him back.
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
Good Morning, Mr. Jessop, Hope you are continuing to recover.
Sorry I must of missed that discussion, there was a piss-take post about returning government to the size it was pre WWI and dismantling the policies of Jenkins et al. What are the "regressive policies" being sought by people who voted to leave the EU.
Theresa May, it seems, couldn't resist twisting the knife as she dealt the blow. She seems to be a remarkably poor people manager. With a majority of 12, she can't afford to be alienating influential and able MPs, even if she doesn't trust them as far as she could throw them.
As @Casino_Royale notes, the government is weaker without George Osborne. One of the many ill effects of the Leave vote was to weaken the ability of the government considerably. But since Leavers are tired of experts, that is no doubt not a concern that troubles the winners.
Politics can get personal. But it's in the nature of politics that politicians do personal reconciliations when they need to.
I had very few good words to say about Osborne at the end of June. I am now open minded about him.
But he has to meet us Brexiters in the middle.
You willed the impoverishment of the quality of government in pursuit of an oddball obsession. Having achieved the second, you now repent of the first. You can't have your cake and eat it.
You are having a laugh right? The real oddball obsession is European Federalism. The only reason Remain got as much as 48% is by terrifying people. Euroscepticism has always had a reasonably big following, and Leave won over enough undecideds to make it across the line.
No-one willed the impoverishment of the quality of government. They willed us to leave the EU. In terms of quality of government Cameron is hardly a great loss.
Actually, the reality is that the large majority of people don't care that much either way. Obsession with Europe, in either direction, has always been a minority feature even within the political bubble. Consequently, at the moment most people are simply waiting to see, and they will make their judgement based on whether the post-Brexit world looks better or worse than what went before.
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
I read it, and ignored it.
I have learnt not to engage with Alastair when, sadly, he can't help but revert to a lower state of evolution.
Brexit is bigger than anyone's ego, and those that put their careers before their country in a vain attempt to save their personal reputation will not be rewarded for it.
Big politicians will recognise this.
Your entire pitch in this thread header consists of "I don't like or respect George Osborne but he could be convenient to my aims, even though he is diametrically opposed to them, so he jolly well should do as I tell him to". Can you not see that is a little optimistic?
When you write "my" aims you do mean "the will of the British people" don't you?
But being a spectator during the most significant British political event of the 21st Century just isn't an option for a politician as ambitious as Osborne.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Read the post immediately above yours. If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it. He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
Do you think that Brexit will end in failure by 2019?
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy. 'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
You apply one PB poster's view to all? Are you serious?
Yes, May has the Mail, Sun and Telegraph on-side - the commentariat less so - we had a vote recently - did the commentariat win that?
She is undoutably going to be marmite in the way that Thatcher was. She is clearly far more right wing in a traditional way than the liberal 'wet' wing of the Tory party and the commontariat realised.
- if they had thought a little deeper, her finding the time to attend an Anglican Church every Sunday despite the time pressures of a great office of state was a huge giveaway.
So now they are alighting on every problem she fwces and every error she makes as it gives them hope that she may fall before all is lost - however in reality it is little more than wishful thinking. The unionists and sinn fein abstension gives her a real majority of about 40 and the opposition is heavily fractured and some of them are barred from voting on some issues.
The key is Cameron spent his first year trying to win over the Guardian, May has focused on the Mail. Which is why I expect May to outlast Dave as PM. May knows that to win an election you need to reassure your base first then reach out (plus the Mail's readership is more than that of the Guardian and Times combined), Cameron started off trying to reassure people who would never vote for him anyway thus he failed to win a majority initially in 2010 and when he really needed his base in and after the EU referendum in particular, the majority deserted him
To support your view. From early 2001, when he was just a hopeful parliamentary candidate, to spring 2004, by which time he was deputy chairman of his party, David Cameron wrote a series of fortnightly diaries .......in the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/Columnists/Archive/0,,649666,00.html
Yes, I think SamCam may also have had something to do with it, socially their circle was more likely to include Guardian readers I imagine than those who read the Mail
One good reason he failed to win a majority in 2010 and only scraped on un 2015 out of fear of the SNP being in official or unofficial?coalition with Labour.
I voted kipper in 2015 but will vote Tory in 2020 under May.
Indeed, May is more reassuring to the Tory base
Today yes May is more reassuring to the Tory base.
Look at Labour. If our departure goes ill, the blues will axe May and replace her with someone who gives them a better chance of winning. Labour will continue being led by a unilateralist friend of Hamas.
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
Been saying this for a while. There is nowhere near enough talent in the government to allow George to go to waste. If we were cruising along in normal times it may be that his undoubted negatives would outweigh this but these are not normal times. May needs all the help she get.
I rather lack sympathy with this view. The government already makes apparently talented individuals very junior ministers, to keep potential critics quiet. I was mainly thinking of Rory Stewart and Jesse Norman.
I'm still concerned that cutting the H of C from 650 to 600 will further weaken Parliament; i.e., the payroll vote will continue unchanged in size.
Not sure about Jesse Norman but the point about Osborne is that he knows how to run a government, to get the various departments singing off the same hymn sheet and pointing in the same direction. He has been doing this job for the Conservatives since his late 20s. With Cameron gone there really isn't anyone else with that experience.
Brexit is not a job for Davis' slightly odd department. It needs work from pretty much every department as there are not many areas which will not be affected by the change in legislation, regulation and increased responsibility that will come with independence. This really needs coordination and that is what Osborne knows how to do.
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy. 'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
You apply one PB poster's view to all? Are you serious?
If you read my post, you can see the words "for many" and "though far from all".
In order to re-invent himself and thereby re-establish credibility both with the mass of Tory members in the country and perhaps more importantly within the Parliamentary party, Osborne needs to admit that he and Cameron as a two man team (for that indeed is what they were) made a number of serious mistakes, most notably over the so-called renegotiation over Europe which was a total disaster. He also needs to show total loyalty towards Mrs May which he might find rather difficult. The truth is that even if she remains PM for only a comparatively short period, say until the next GE or possibly for an even shorter period, she is precisely the glue which the party needed right here and now and which no one else appeared capable of providing satisfactorily.
Do you remember the good old days when OGH regularly assured us that Europe was way down the list of political issues? Now we talk of little else. I swear a picture of Kim Kardashian scratching her arse posted at three o'clock on a Sunday morning would provoke a row between brexiteers and bitter remainers.
Look at Labour. If our departure goes ill, the blues will axe May and replace her with someone who gives them a better chance of winning. Labour will continue being led by a unilateralist friend of Hamas.
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success.
At what economic cost?
Well, if the Treasury was correct, the choice was between an economy that was 27% bigger by 2030 and an economy that was 36% bigger. I think most people could live with the former.
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
Good Morning, Mr. Jessop, Hope you are continuing to recover.
Sorry I must of missed that discussion, there was a piss-take post about returning government to the size it was pre WWI and dismantling the policies of Jenkins et al. What are the "regressive policies" being sought by people who voted to leave the EU.
I'm in fine fettle thanks, Mr L, and am just waiting for some bread to come out of the oven.
There were several posts yesterday from several posters, and I count anyone who talks about disassembling the progressive consensus or similar, and *anything* that flows out of Leadsom's diseased orifice.
Regressives in every sense of the word.
As for policies: reducing womens' rights, reducing freedoms, rowing back on the rights of immigrants, bringing back grammar schools without looking at the problems, etc, etc.
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
I voted kipper in 2015 but will vote Tory in 2020 under May.
Indeed, May is more reassuring to the Tory base
There's an awful lot of projection going on here. How do you know that May in 2020 will have performed to your (and the base's) satisfaction?
Though if she's against Corbyn she'd probably have to mandate gay marriage for all and disestablish the CofE to lose the base.
We dont for sure, but sacking osborne, bringing back grammar schools and still finding time to go to church on sundays sends a damn good dog whistle to that effect
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy. 'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
You apply one PB poster's view to all? Are you serious?
If you read my post, you can see the words "for many" and "though far from all".
Next.
Is many more than 1%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 80% of PB LEAVErs?
I voted kipper in 2015 but will vote Tory in 2020 under May.
Indeed, May is more reassuring to the Tory base
There's an awful lot of projection going on here. How do you know that May in 2020 will have performed to your (and the base's) satisfaction?
Though if she's against Corbyn she'd probably have to mandate gay marriage for all and disestablish the CofE to lose the base.
There will be a few who might move to UKIP if she makes even the slightest hint of compromise in the Brexit negotiations but the reassurances she is giving to the base at the moment should keep the majority on board, especially given the alternative is Corbyn
For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success.
At what economic cost?
Well, if the Treasury was correct, the choice was between an economy that was 27% bigger by 2030 and an economy that was 36% bigger. I think most people could live with the former.
Not that it was correct. I actually took the time to read that report and it's some of the most obscene statistical and economic nonsense imaginable. It makes £350m/week look good.
Yes, May has the Mail, Sun and Telegraph on-side - the commentariat less so - we had a vote recently - did the commentariat win that?
She is undoutably going to be marmite in the way that Thatcher was. She is clearly far more right wing in a traditional way than the liberal 'wet' wing of the Tory party and the commontariat realised.
- if they had thought a little deeper, her finding the time to attend an Anglican Church every Sunday despite the time pressures of a great office of state was a huge giveaway.
The key is Cameron spent his first year trying to win over the Guardian, May has focused on the Mail. Which is why I expect May to outlast Dave as PM. May knows that to win an election you need to reassure your base first then reach out (plus the Mail's readership is more than that of the Guardian and Times combined), Cameron started off trying to reassure people who would never vote for him anyway thus he failed to win a majority initially in 2010 and when he really needed his base in and after the EU referendum in particular, the majority deserted him
To support your view. From early 2001, when he was just a hopeful parliamentary candidate, to spring 2004, by which time he was deputy chairman of his party, David Cameron wrote a series of fortnightly diaries .......in the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/Columnists/Archive/0,,649666,00.html
Yes, I think SamCam may also have had something to do with it, socially their circle was more likely to include Guardian readers I imagine than those who read the Mail
One good reason he failed to win a majority in 2010 and only scraped on un 2015 out of fear of the SNP being in official or unofficial?coalition with Labour.
I voted kipper in 2015 but will vote Tory in 2020 under May.
Indeed, May is more reassuring to the Tory base
Today yes May is more reassuring to the Tory base.
Whatever she does now she will be more reassuring than Cameron
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
Go on then define what you think failure means?
I suppose failure would look like a devaluing pound, rising unemployment, increasing social division, race riots, the decline in British exports, GDP per capita falling behind comparable countries and the loss of British influence in the world. It would look a lot like before we joined the EU.
So the predictions from REMAIN about an immediate economic impact of the vote were lies?
No just economic ignorance.
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
Good Morning, Mr. Jessop, Hope you are continuing to recover.
Sorry I must of missed that discussion, there was a piss-take post about returning government to the size it was pre WWI and dismantling the policies of Jenkins et al. What are the "regressive policies" being sought by people who voted to leave the EU.
I'm in fine fettle thanks, Mr L, and am just waiting for some bread to come out of the oven.
There were several posts yesterday from several posters, and I count anyone who talks about disassembling the progressive consensus or similar, and *anything* that flows out of Leadsom's diseased orifice.
Regressives in every sense of the word.
As for policies: reducing womens' rights, reducing freedoms, rowing back on the rights of immigrants, bringing back grammar schools without looking at the problems, etc, etc.
Thanks Mr. J.. " ...reducing womens' rights, reducing freedoms, rowing back on the rights of immigrants", I know I spend too much time on this site but I don't think I have ever seen a post from anyone supporting any of those ideas.
Actually that is not quite true, I have posted myself on the fact that if we are going to have immigration controls then there must be a method by which overstayers and the like can be promptly removed otherwise there is no point in controlling who comes in. I suppose that could be construed as rowing back on the rights of immigrants.
Liberals had been hoping that Trump's poll numbers would decrease after he trolled the press.
Instead, the LA Times tracking poll update shows that the gap between him & Hillary has increased by 0.7 points. His 47.7% in the poll is also a new high for him.
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
Go on then define what you think failure means?
I suggest it could embrace four scenarios:
- a significant economic downturn (prolonged recession) - economic performance of the UK falls progressively behind rest of EU - significant impediments to movement (visas, payments, queues to visit the EU; tons of hoops for businesses selling into Europe) - EU falls apart, rise of extremist politics
On the last I readily accept that Brexit could be seen as symptom rather than cause, but one thing does tend to lead to another (e.g. Brexit is being used to try and fuel Trump, Le Pen etc)
So the predictions from REMAIN about an immediate economic impact of the vote were lies?
No just economic ignorance.
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
Chap with History degree who wants a forecast that advances his political view on the EU, instructs Treasury staff on assumptions to make and publishes the results............
For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success.
At what economic cost?
Well, if the Treasury was correct, the choice was between an economy that was 27% bigger by 2030 and an economy that was 36% bigger. I think most people could live with the former.
And so far the Treasury's prediction of an "immediate shock" recession and sharp rise in unemployment have not proved too accurate..
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
And counter-factuals can never be settled definitively. Suppose in ten years, Europe is ruled by quasi-fascist and extreme left governments, was this caused by Brexit, or does it prove we were right to leave the whole project?
So the predictions from REMAIN about an immediate economic impact of the vote were lies?
No just economic ignorance.
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
Chap with History degree who wants a forecast that advances his political view on the EU, instructs Treasury staff on assumptions to make and publishes the results............
As said at the time, numbers plucked out his arse....
Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, said that "all hands are on deck" in the city.
"We also want to be up front in saying that there is no evidence at this point of a terror connection to this incident," he added.
What a stupid thing to say...you don't just find several IEDs in a major city just from some one larking about. I think what he really means to say is no connection to Islamic terrorism at this stage.
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
This piece by Rentoul in Indie has bearing on the Osborne debate:
T"hat is why I thought she was unwise to humiliate George Osborne in her reshuffle. She could have allowed him to “resign” to allow her to present her government as fresh, and offered the prospect of a return. Instead, her people told journalists he had been lectured on his shortcomings and sacked."
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
And counter-factuals can never be settled definitively. Suppose in ten years, Europe is ruled by quasi-fascist and extreme left governments, was this caused by Brexit, or does it prove we were right to leave the whole project?
Absolutely. There is no parallel universe to test the alternative scenario, and for any true believer (in anything) no amount of evidence to the contrary will prevent them from having an answer.
Ultimately the test is public opinion - in your scenario the question is whether most people believe that the Brexit vote led (or significantly contributed to) the outcome you describe. And, in the very long run, the verdict will be made by historians and what they are teaching in schools in 2116 (which in your scenario we may not like at all!).
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
Go on then define what you think failure means?
I suggest it could embrace four scenarios:
- a significant economic downturn (prolonged recession) - economic performance of the UK falls progressively behind rest of EU - significant impediments to movement (visas, payments, queues to visit the EU; tons of hoops for businesses selling into Europe) - EU falls apart, rise of extremist politics
On the last I readily accept that Brexit could be seen as symptom rather than cause, but one thing does tend to lead to another (e.g. Brexit is being used to try and fuel Trump, Le Pen etc)
Suppose, for the sake of argument, the UK's GDP per head grew by 20% to 2030, but the EU average grew by 25%, would that count as failure?
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
Go on then define what you think failure means?
I suggest it could embrace four scenarios:
- a significant economic downturn (prolonged recession) - economic performance of the UK falls progressively behind rest of EU - significant impediments to movement (visas, payments, queues to visit the EU; tons of hoops for businesses selling into Europe) - EU falls apart, rise of extremist politics
On the last I readily accept that Brexit could be seen as symptom rather than cause, but one thing does tend to lead to another (e.g. Brexit is being used to try and fuel Trump, Le Pen etc)
Suppose, for the sake of argument, the UK's GDP per head grew by 20% to 2030, but the EU average grew by 25%, would that count as failure?
It would suggest that Brexit may not have done us any favours but is probably an outcome people would be fairly happy with, except for the cost of travelling abroad.
They want to run the whole referendum campaign again - did no-one tell them the result?
The problem is that for many Brexiters (though far from all), a leave vote is just the start. They want to turn back the clock totally, as we saw on here yesterday. They feel they are in the ascendancy.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
Good Morning, Mr. Jessop, Hope you are continuing to recover.
Sorry I must of missed that discussion, there was a piss-take post about returning government to the size it was pre WWI and dismantling the policies of Jenkins et al. What are the "regressive policies" being sought by people who voted to leave the EU.
I'm in fine fettle thanks, Mr L, and am just waiting for some bread to come out of the oven.
There were several posts yesterday from several posters, and I count anyone who talks about disassembling the progressive consensus or similar, and *anything* that flows out of Leadsom's diseased orifice.
Regressives in every sense of the word.
As for policies: reducing womens' rights, reducing freedoms, rowing back on the rights of immigrants, bringing back grammar schools without looking at the problems, etc, etc.
Thanks Mr. J.. " ...reducing womens' rights, reducing freedoms, rowing back on the rights of immigrants", I know I spend too much time on this site but I don't think I have ever seen a post from anyone supporting any of those ideas.
Actually that is not quite true, I have posted myself on the fact that if we are going to have immigration controls then there must be a method by which overstayers and the like can be promptly removed otherwise there is no point in controlling who comes in. I suppose that could be construed as rowing back on the rights of immigrants.
Banning the hijab, burkha and even balaclavas, throwing out all Muslims (though that was in one of SeanT's more colourful periods), treating peaceful Muslims differently to other citizens, reducing availability or banning abortions, reducing womens' accessibility to the workplace, wanting to reintroduce grammar schools whilst ignoring the problems at the lower end of achievement, etc, etc.
Having said that, the more colourful progressives can be as bad, though they're not so much in evidence on PB.
"During a discussion on how to combat the stigma attached to sex work, chairman of Cheltenham Lib Dems Mr Parsons compared prostitution with accountancy. He said: “The fact that we are asking ‘should we seek to prevent people entering sex work?’ is part of the problem. You wouldn’t ask the question ‘should we prevent people becoming accountants?’ You’d just take it for granted.”"
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
Go on then define what you think failure means?
I suggest it could embrace four scenarios:
- a significant economic downturn (prolonged recession) - economic performance of the UK falls progressively behind rest of EU - significant impediments to movement (visas, payments, queues to visit the EU; tons of hoops for businesses selling into Europe) - EU falls apart, rise of extremist politics
On the last I readily accept that Brexit could be seen as symptom rather than cause, but one thing does tend to lead to another (e.g. Brexit is being used to try and fuel Trump, Le Pen etc)
Suppose, for the sake of argument, the UK's GDP per head grew by 20% to 2030, but the EU average grew by 25%, would that count as failure?
It might just mean that spurred on by Brexit, the EU had taken hard choices - and finally got its shit together. I hope for their sake that is how it pans out.
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
Go on then define what you think failure means?
I suggest it could embrace four scenarios:
- a significant economic downturn (prolonged recession) - economic performance of the UK falls progressively behind rest of EU - significant impediments to movement (visas, payments, queues to visit the EU; tons of hoops for businesses selling into Europe) - EU falls apart, rise of extremist politics
On the last I readily accept that Brexit could be seen as symptom rather than cause, but one thing does tend to lead to another (e.g. Brexit is being used to try and fuel Trump, Le Pen etc)
Fair Go, Mr. B2, but three out of the four criteria could only be judged a fair while after we actually leave the EU i.e. the other side of 2020 and in the case of item 2 a long time after we have left.
This is what I was struggling to get at when people say if Brexit fails or if Brexit is a disaster then TM will have to resign blah, blah, blah. Failure is not, unless defined on some purely subjective criteria, able to be measured in the timescales of TM's premiership.
Whether Brexit is a success or a failure largely depends on what one's political outlook is. For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success. But, for those whose political outlook is opposite to my own, achieving those objectives counts as failure.
Quite so, Mr. F., people on here talk breezily about Brexit ending in failure or even disaster but without ever defining what constitutes failure. Whatever the result of the negotiations some people will regard them as a failure even a disaster. So without some metrics it is all a bit of a nonsense, and we can't have said metrics because there cannot be an agreed definition of success.
Failure will be somewhat easier to measure than success.
Go on then define what you think failure means?
I suggest it could embrace four scenarios:
- a significant economic downturn (prolonged recession) - economic performance of the UK falls progressively behind rest of EU - significant impediments to movement (visas, payments, queues to visit the EU; tons of hoops for businesses selling into Europe) - EU falls apart, rise of extremist politics
On the last I readily accept that Brexit could be seen as symptom rather than cause, but one thing does tend to lead to another (e.g. Brexit is being used to try and fuel Trump, Le Pen etc)
Suppose, for the sake of argument, the UK's GDP per head grew by 20% to 2030, but the EU average grew by 25%, would that count as failure?
It might just mean that spurred on by Brexit, the EU had taken hard choices - and finally got its shit together. I hope for their sake that is how it pans out.
Still wouldn't alter my vote though.
What end-result in ten years would make you regret the way you voted?
And so far the Treasury's prediction of an "immediate shock" recession and sharp rise in unemployment have not proved too accurate..
You know we haven't left yet, right?
The emergency budget was said to take place immediately after a Bexit vote because of market and businesses anticipation of what would happen when we did leave the EU.
"During a discussion on how to combat the stigma attached to sex work, chairman of Cheltenham Lib Dems Mr Parsons compared prostitution with accountancy. He said: “The fact that we are asking ‘should we seek to prevent people entering sex work?’ is part of the problem. You wouldn’t ask the question ‘should we prevent people becoming accountants?’ You’d just take it for granted.”"
I wouldn't take it for granted - I'd like to know what the arguments for stopping people becoming accountants are?
For me, a reassertion of national sovereignty, and an end to free migration are good things, and therefore achieving them would count as success.
At what economic cost?
Well, if the Treasury was correct, the choice was between an economy that was 27% bigger by 2030 and an economy that was 36% bigger. I think most people could live with the former.
And so far the Treasury's prediction of an "immediate shock" recession and sharp rise in unemployment have not proved too accurate..
Is it possible that Osborne was advised by Danny Blanchflower?
Good article and nice to see Casino joining the panel of above-the-line writers.
I think Osborne has chosen a not-very-veiled oppositional role and May does not go in for rewarding that, so I suspect it'll be a while before his chance comes - if May becomes very unpopular, though, he might be seen as a useful reinforcement and/or possible replacement.
Comments
There have been previous Budgets which were later shown to be economic mistakes and previous Budgets which were later shown to be political mistakes.
But I can't remember any before Osborne's where they disintegrated within days.
Added to which, he is virulently opposed to Brexit, and would no doubt be far more on the side of the EU than he is of the UK.
Astonishingly, despite the prepublicity, they are terrified of taking control.
He has to shape it, and own it.
Though for me his last budget was the only real error - apart from constant tinkering of course - when IDS is schooling you in both politics and presentation, you're not a master strategist.
Scheming rather that doing his job.
I'm still concerned that cutting the H of C from 650 to 600 will further weaken Parliament; i.e., the payroll vote will continue unchanged in size.
If it's a failure, as Osborne predicted and probably expects, he wants no part on owning it.
He can then rebuild success once the strutting Brexiteers have been humiliated.
Links?
Here's the Observer for starters..
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/17/theresa-may-prime-minister-prepared-to-risk-it-all
No-one willed the impoverishment of the quality of government. They willed us to leave the EU. In terms of quality of government Cameron is hardly a great loss.
I have learnt not to engage with Alastair when, sadly, he can't help but revert to a lower state of evolution.
Brexit is bigger than anyone's ego, and those that put their careers before their country in a vain attempt to save their personal reputation will not be rewarded for it.
Big politicians will recognise this.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
Though if she's against Corbyn she'd probably have to mandate gay marriage for all and disestablish the CofE to lose the base.
No one is going to elect an "I told you so" PM from a failed government.
Sorry I must of missed that discussion, there was a piss-take post about returning government to the size it was pre WWI and dismantling the policies of Jenkins et al. What are the "regressive policies" being sought by people who voted to leave the EU.
Look at Labour. If our departure goes ill, the blues will axe May and replace her with someone who gives them a better chance of winning. Labour will continue being led by a unilateralist friend of Hamas.
With Cameron gone there really isn't anyone else with that experience.
Brexit is not a job for Davis' slightly odd department. It needs work from pretty much every department as there are not many areas which will not be affected by the change in legislation, regulation and increased responsibility that will come with independence. This really needs coordination and that is what Osborne knows how to do.
Next.
In order to re-invent himself and thereby re-establish credibility both with the mass of Tory members in the country and perhaps more importantly within the Parliamentary party, Osborne needs to admit that he and Cameron as a two man team (for that indeed is what they were) made a number of serious mistakes, most notably over the so-called renegotiation over Europe which was a total disaster. He also needs to show total loyalty towards Mrs May which he might find rather difficult.
The truth is that even if she remains PM for only a comparatively short period, say until the next GE or possibly for an even shorter period, she is precisely the glue which the party needed right here and now and which no one else appeared capable of providing satisfactorily.
There were several posts yesterday from several posters, and I count anyone who talks about disassembling the progressive consensus or similar, and *anything* that flows out of Leadsom's diseased orifice.
Regressives in every sense of the word.
As for policies: reducing womens' rights, reducing freedoms, rowing back on the rights of immigrants, bringing back grammar schools without looking at the problems, etc, etc.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
Actually that is not quite true, I have posted myself on the fact that if we are going to have immigration controls then there must be a method by which overstayers and the like can be promptly removed otherwise there is no point in controlling who comes in. I suppose that could be construed as rowing back on the rights of immigrants.
Instead, the LA Times tracking poll update shows that the gap between him & Hillary has increased by 0.7 points. His 47.7% in the poll is also a new high for him.
Trump now leading by +6.7.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
- a significant economic downturn (prolonged recession)
- economic performance of the UK falls progressively behind rest of EU
- significant impediments to movement (visas, payments, queues to visit the EU; tons of hoops for businesses selling into Europe)
- EU falls apart, rise of extremist politics
On the last I readily accept that Brexit could be seen as symptom rather than cause, but one thing does tend to lead to another (e.g. Brexit is being used to try and fuel Trump, Le Pen etc)
T"hat is why I thought she was unwise to humiliate George Osborne in her reshuffle. She could have allowed him to “resign” to allow her to present her government as fresh, and offered the prospect of a return. Instead, her people told journalists he had been lectured on his shortcomings and sacked."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-gordon-brown-prime-minister-indecision-a7313421.html
Ultimately the test is public opinion - in your scenario the question is whether most people believe that the Brexit vote led (or significantly contributed to) the outcome you describe. And, in the very long run, the verdict will be made by historians and what they are teaching in schools in 2116 (which in your scenario we may not like at all!).
Unless of course that was just bullshit.
Having said that, the more colourful progressives can be as bad, though they're not so much in evidence on PB.
Sun Politics✔ @SunPolitics
Lib Dem says schools should be able to suggest prostitution as a line of work to pupils
http://thesun.uk/6011B7rCU
"During a discussion on how to combat the stigma attached to sex work, chairman of Cheltenham Lib Dems Mr Parsons compared prostitution with accountancy.
He said: “The fact that we are asking ‘should we seek to prevent people entering sex work?’ is part of the problem. You wouldn’t ask the question ‘should we prevent people becoming accountants?’ You’d just take it for granted.”"
Black support for Trump has increased to 20%.
So, he wasn't wasting his time appealing for votes from African-Americans.
Also, male support for Clinton has fallen to 34% vs 55% for Trump.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Still wouldn't alter my vote though.
This is what I was struggling to get at when people say if Brexit fails or if Brexit is a disaster then TM will have to resign blah, blah, blah. Failure is not, unless defined on some purely subjective criteria, able to be measured in the timescales of TM's premiership.
Mr. Betting, if it's Lib Dem policy to completely legalise all aspects of prostitution, that's an intellectually coherent position to hold.
I wonder if they'd put VAT on it.
I think Osborne has chosen a not-very-veiled oppositional role and May does not go in for rewarding that, so I suspect it'll be a while before his chance comes - if May becomes very unpopular, though, he might be seen as a useful reinforcement and/or possible replacement.