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.
But nevertheless the expectation was A50 would be triggered immediately. It hasn't and until it is, nothing has changed.
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?
No, that's how you see it through your Remainiac prism.
It is actually i didn't like the way he behaved, and he comes from a different strand of Conservatism to me, but I respect his talents and see how he could play a big part in making the next phase of our national journey a success, but we will all have to act like grown ups to make it happen. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones.
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
A link to a document entitled "leaving_the_eu", which we haven't done yet...
A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow.
The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.
Just VOTING to LEAVE would cause "an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty.....push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment."
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.
A slight change on Gordon Brown's job policy of BJ4BW?
Or more likely Brexit is going to be a mess. May will go at some point. We need someone to sort out the mess.
That would never be Osborne, he could not run a bath.
It would only be a Tory temporarily, until the people got a say. There is no way the Tories could avoid the "they got us into this mess, from start to finish" at a subsequent election, since (apart from UKIP, which may have gone by then anyway) none of the other parties are tarred with Leave.
Black Monday did for the Tories, which would be small beer by comparison (and less obviously a consequence of something the Tories went round advocating prior)
"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.”"
That's a bit harsh on accountants. Law and banking would be fairer comparisons.
... then Trump is like some PB'ers who have called things terrorist attacks when they were nothing of the sort
pressur ecookers filled with explosives and detonated via mobile phone are not usually put in skips by ordinary joe public. Sounds like a "terrorist" attack to me.
She'll grow into the role but she's had a reasonable start. Hinkley Point wasn't great but other than that she's been good.
She certainly doesn't need to start hitting the panic button and bringing back the like's of Osborne at this stage.
The grammar schools policy has been an unnecessary mess, and one that will pollute her education policy for the next year or so.
It's a "mess" of your opposed to grammar schools? If your not (or if like me you aren't especially bothered one way or t'other) it's not been a "mess".
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.
You said I was 'unthinkingly regressive' yesterday.
Would you point out which parts of your list you think I support (or is it all of them) ?
FYI I totally agreed with a comment you made recently on Islamic headgear so maybe you have regressive tendencies yourself.
I also support the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia and heterosexual civil partnerships. Perhaps you should add those to your list of regressive policies.
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?
Danny Blanchflower the footballer rather than Danny Blanchflower the so-called economist?
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.
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?
Indeed.
Osborne's abilities appear to be greatly over-rated, primarily by the man himself...
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.
Thanks David. I'm pleased to see there's at least one fellow Leaver who thinks I might have a point!
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
"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.”"
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.
I believe that the era of more-or-less uncontested economic and social liberalism is ending, but nor will the country be performing a handbrake turn and speeding back off into the past. Whatever is coming next is going to be something that represents a compromise between the liberal agenda and the conservative majority in the country.
On the one hand we have proposals for selective education, and early suggestions that there is to be a less tolerant approach to crime (penalties for texting whilst driving to be doubled, although frankly I'd be all for stripping the licences of anyone caught using a handheld mobile at the wheel for a first offence - it shows a flagrant disregard for the gamble they're taking with the lives of others.) A redoubling of efforts to deport foreign prisoners in British jails would also be welcome.
On the other hand, liberal reforms to personal freedoms - for example same sex marriage (which May played a significant part in bringing about in the first place) and employment rights for pregnant women and new mothers - will be maintained and defended.
The evidence of the referendum suggests that much, perhaps most, of public opinion has been wilfully ignored by a consensus body of liberal and Europhile politicians for many years. The changes which have taken place in the directions and relative fortunes of the major political parties, following both the last GE and the EU vote, suggest that British politics is recalibrating itself to more truly reflect the diversity of voter opinion. Whilst it is true that this has created the temporary problem of a dominant Conservative Party with the potential to sideline the fractured opposition after the next election, in the longer term this can surely only be a good thing?
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
A link to a document entitled "leaving_the_eu", which we haven't done yet...
A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow.
The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.
Just VOTING to LEAVE would cause "an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty.....push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment."
Taking the opportunity to advocate for the devil, it DID cause an immediate and profound shock - the £ went down massively within minutes and has not recovered, the stock market fell significantly the very next day, but has since recovered.
And you can't argue that we don't now have some uncertainty.
Business decisions are being taken now that will affect the economy next year and thereafter. Whether there is a recession and rise in unemployment isn't yet clear - although I agree that the early signs are relatively hopeful that we may escape this, pre-Brexit at least.
You are reading the word "immediate" in the quote to apply to everything that follows, whereas as an adjective in the sentence strictly it only refers to the shock.
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?
We could probably predict with about 90% accuracy the answer to that question now, depending upon how one voted on 23rd June 2016.
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.
Mr. Dancer, Prostitution per se has never been illegal in England. To be sure there have been various criminal offences around the the profession, for example soliciting in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, running a brothel, living off immoral earnings and, more recently, "curb crawling". However, prostitution as an act or profession has never in itself been illegal. There were a couple of cases in the 1980s in which prostitutes in Brighton were prosecuted by the Inland Revenue for non-payment of income tax, I expect there were more elsewhere.
Whether it should be subject to VAT depends on the earnings of the prostitute. If they are over the statutory limit then he/she must register for VAT and charge the tax to their clients. If the earnings is less than the cut off depending on the advice of their financial advisor they may still choose to register for VAT.
My favourite Hillary conspiracy story of the day so far is this - the crowds have been mocked up using with green screen trickery. The Hill got into trouble for alleged photoshopping/using a pix of NY rally as evidence of big crowds elsewhere.
There's some great detailed forensic video stuff on YouTube - and it's coming from Trumpers and Bernie fans. Must have taken them ages.
Having looked at a few - there's some odd things there. Images on some iPhones supposedly recording events, aren't showing what's right in front of them. It looks like people at the back have been green screened/photoshopped layered into the foreground or lifted from another staging after the event. There's no sign waving/Hillary at all in some too. All most amusing time wasting.
the la times is one of the worse polls out there. what it says is pretty useless
Nate at 538 says Clinton has had a bad few days. Clear this has cost her in the polls. The question is whether there will be a recovery by next weekend.
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.
Mr. Dancer, Prostitution per se has never been illegal in England. To be sure there have been various criminal offences around the the profession, for example soliciting in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, running a brothel, living off immoral earnings and, more recently, "curb crawling". However, prostitution as an act or profession has never in itself been illegal. There were a couple of cases in the 1980s in which prostitutes in Brighton were prosecuted by the Inland Revenue for non-payment of income tax, I expect there were more elsewhere.
Whether it should be subject to VAT depends on the earnings of the prostitute. If they are over the statutory limit then he/she must register for VAT and charge the tax to their clients. If the earnings is less than the cut off depending on the advice of their financial advisor they may still choose to register for VAT.
Always remembering they can offset input VAT against output VAT.
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.
Mr. Dancer, Prostitution per se has never been illegal in England. To be sure there have been various criminal offences around the the profession, for example soliciting in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, running a brothel, living off immoral earnings and, more recently, "curb crawling". However, prostitution as an act or profession has never in itself been illegal. There were a couple of cases in the 1980s in which prostitutes in Brighton were prosecuted by the Inland Revenue for non-payment of income tax, I expect there were more elsewhere.
Whether it should be subject to VAT depends on the earnings of the prostitute. If they are over the statutory limit then he/she must register for VAT and charge the tax to their clients. If the earnings is less than the cut off depending on the advice of their financial advisor they may still choose to register for VAT.
As in Amsterdam no doubt; see Wikipedia. Apparently a reasonably civilised system of taxation and regulation.
Turkey used to have nationalised brothels, it was part of Attaturk's legacy so is of course disappearing fast. I somehow doubt we'll ever see that as Labour party policy.
I suggest you read the text of the document, not just the url.....
The text that describes what might happen after we leave, which we haven't done yet...
No it doesn't. It describes the immediate effect after the vote and before negotiations
As I said below, the only thing tagged as 'immediate' is the predicted shock.
SeanT was all over this site a couple of days after the vote, bemoaning the dreadful mistake he thought he had made by voting leave. I'd take that as good evidence of shock, myself.
... then Trump is like some PB'ers who have called things terrorist attacks when they were nothing of the sort
pressur ecookers filled with explosives and detonated via mobile phone are not usually put in skips by ordinary joe public. Sounds like a "terrorist" attack to me.
We will have to wait and see in this case, but the authorities in several countries appear to be bending over backwards to downplay terrorist reasons for what is happening.
My favourite Hillary conspiracy story of the day so far is this - the crowds have been mocked up using with green screen trickery. The Hill got into trouble for alleged photoshopping/using a pix of NY rally as evidence of big crowds elsewhere.
There's some great detailed forensic video stuff on YouTube - and it's coming from Trumpers and Bernie fans. Must have taken them ages.
Having looked at a few - there's some odd things there. Images on some iPhones supposedly recording events, aren't showing what's right in front of them. It looks like people at the back have been green screened/photoshopped layered into the foreground or lifted from another staging after the event. There's no sign waving/Hillary at all in some too. All most amusing time wasting.
I think like the health stuff, there is an element truth.
It seems like Clinton campaign have been trying to hide / spin that when Clinton does do events they aren't massively well attended. Like health, they don't want a narrative of loads of more people turning up for Trump, or even that of Obama campaigns.
Same as they don't want Duracell Bunny Trump vs "weak" Clinton narrative to develop. I noticed that the press have really run with that Trump weighs 230 pounds...seems a bit sexist to me...I am half joking.
All of which doesn't equal the conspiracy theory of green screens, no crowds because some sort of Clinton brain injury etc etc etc.
the la times is one of the worse polls out there. what it says is pretty useless
Nate at 538 says Clinton has had a bad few days. Clear this has cost her in the polls. The question is whether there will be a recovery by next weekend.
My favourite Hillary conspiracy story of the day so far is this - the crowds have been mocked up using with green screen trickery. The Hill got into trouble for alleged photoshopping/using a pix of NY rally as evidence of big crowds elsewhere.
There's some great detailed forensic video stuff on YouTube - and it's coming from Trumpers and Bernie fans. Must have taken them ages.
Having looked at a few - there's some odd things there. Images on some iPhones supposedly recording events, aren't showing what's right in front of them. It looks like people at the back have been green screened/photoshopped layered into the foreground or lifted from another staging after the event. There's no sign waving/Hillary at all in some too. All most amusing time wasting.
I think like the health stuff, there is an element truth.
It seems like Clinton campaign have been trying to hide / spin that when Clinton does do events they aren't massively well attended. Like health, they don't want a narrative of loads of more people turning up for Trump, or even that of Obama campaigns.
Same as they don't want Duracell Bunny Trump vs "weak" Clinton narrative to develop. I noticed that the press have really run with that Trump weighs 230 pounds...seems a bit sexist to me...I am half joking.
All of which doesn't equal the conspiracy theory of green screens, no crowds because some sort of Clinton brain injury etc etc etc.
trump has had lesser attended rallys as well. as with corbyn, rallies mean little
My favourite Hillary conspiracy story of the day so far is this - the crowds have been mocked up using with green screen trickery. The Hill got into trouble for alleged photoshopping/using a pix of NY rally as evidence of big crowds elsewhere.
There's some great detailed forensic video stuff on YouTube - and it's coming from Trumpers and Bernie fans. Must have taken them ages.
Having looked at a few - there's some odd things there. Images on some iPhones supposedly recording events, aren't showing what's right in front of them. It looks like people at the back have been green screened/photoshopped layered into the foreground or lifted from another staging after the event. There's no sign waving/Hillary at all in some too. All most amusing time wasting.
I think like the health stuff, there is an element truth.
It seems like Clinton campaign have been trying to hide / spin that when Clinton does do events they aren't massively well attended. Like health, they don't want a narrative of loads of more people turning up for Trump, or even that of Obama campaigns.
Same as they don't want Duracell Bunny Trump vs "weak" Clinton narrative to develop. I noticed that the press have really run with that Trump weighs 230 pounds...seems a bit sexist to me...I am half joking.
All of which doesn't equal the conspiracy theory of green screens, no crowds because some sort of Clinton brain injury etc etc etc.
trump has had lesser attended rallys as well. as with corbyn, rallies mean little
Of course. It means little to nothing, that wasn't my point.
My point was the conspiracy theories are able to get a start because there is an element of untruth / spin going on and now with everybody has a camera phone it is easy to get caught out.
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?
Danny Blanchflower the footballer rather than Danny Blanchflower the so-called economist?
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?
Danny Blanchflower the footballer rather than Danny Blanchflower the so-called economist?
The footballer died in 1993.
But probably still gives better economic advice than the latter.
Baroness Emma Nicholson, former MP for Torridge and West Devon who defected to the LDs from the Tories in 1995, has defected back to the Conservatives.
"Announcing her decision to rejoin the Tories, Baroness Nicholson said it was because of Theresa May's "real commitment to delivering for the next generation and building a country that works for everyone".
She added: "I am rejoining the Conservative Party with tremendous pleasure. My energies are dedicated to fighting for our new PM and her policies.
"Her education speech last week showed she leads a party with a real commitment to delivering for the next generation and building a country that works for everyone.
"We in the Conservative Party have a great history of diversity, optimism in our people's creativity and success.
I suggest you read the text of the document, not just the url.....
The text that describes what might happen after we leave, which we haven't done yet...
No it doesn't. It describes the immediate effect after the vote and before negotiations
As I said below, the only thing tagged as 'immediate' is the predicted shock.
SeanT was all over this site a couple of days after the vote, bemoaning the dreadful mistake he thought he had made by voting leave. I'd take that as good evidence of shock, myself.
SeanT has heroic wobbles from time to time - I wouldn't regard him as a reliable barometer!
The document covers the two years after the vote - and before we Leave - and predicts four quarters of negative growth (or worse) and Increase in unemployment of between 500-800 thousand. Still early days, but so far, that's looking a tad pessimistic...
These are the movements of the implied probabilities at the Betfair exchange over the past 40 hours. Note how Trump's price has moved since the bomb exploded in New York 11 hours ago.
My favourite Hillary conspiracy story of the day so far is this - the crowds have been mocked up using with green screen trickery. The Hill got into trouble for alleged photoshopping/using a pix of NY rally as evidence of big crowds elsewhere.
There's some great detailed forensic video stuff on YouTube - and it's coming from Trumpers and Bernie fans. Must have taken them ages.
Having looked at a few - there's some odd things there. Images on some iPhones supposedly recording events, aren't showing what's right in front of them. It looks like people at the back have been green screened/photoshopped layered into the foreground or lifted from another staging after the event. There's no sign waving/Hillary at all in some too. All most amusing time wasting.
I think like the health stuff, there is an element truth.
It seems like Clinton campaign have been trying to hide / spin that when Clinton does do events they aren't massively well attended. Like health, they don't want a narrative of loads of more people turning up for Trump, or even that of Obama campaigns.
Same as they don't want Duracell Bunny Trump vs "weak" Clinton narrative to develop. I noticed that the press have really run with that Trump weighs 230 pounds...seems a bit sexist to me...I am half joking.
All of which doesn't equal the conspiracy theory of green screens, no crowds because some sort of Clinton brain injury etc etc etc.
trump has had lesser attended rallys as well. as with corbyn, rallies mean little
Of course. It means little to nothing, that wasn't my point.
My point was the conspiracy theories are able to get a start because there is an element of untruth / spin going on and now with everybody has a camera phone it is easy to get caught out.
I suggest you read the text of the document, not just the url.....
The text that describes what might happen after we leave, which we haven't done yet...
No it doesn't. It describes the immediate effect after the vote and before negotiations
As I said below, the only thing tagged as 'immediate' is the predicted shock.
SeanT was all over this site a couple of days after the vote, bemoaning the dreadful mistake he thought he had made by voting leave. I'd take that as good evidence of shock, myself.
SeanT has heroic wobbles from time to time - I wouldn't regard him as a reliable barometer!
The document covers the two years after the vote - and before we Leave - and predicts four quarters of negative growth (or worse) and Increase in unemployment of between 500-800 thousand. Still early days, but so far, that's looking a tad pessimistic...
Agree on both points. Bottom line is that the document you quoted isn't, yet, proved wrong. I agree it looks pessimistic but, as with previous shocks such as the oil price in the 1970s, things do take a bit of time to work through the economy.
As a relatively mundane example, the retail price of wine hasn't yet risen, because UK retailers had significant stock and the larger ones have hedged their forward currency exposure. But, without a significant recovery in the £, bottle prices are forecast to be on the increase by early next year.
These are the movements of the implied probabilities at the Betfair exchange over the past 40 hours. Note how Trump's price has moved since the bomb exploded in New York 11 hours ago.
the la times is one of the worse polls out there. what it says is pretty useless
I think the trends it shows are interesting even if the absolute numbers are dubious. Like the source of the Trump Bump coming solely from under 65 males is v interesting.
But George Osborne promoted it - predicting an "immediate shock" a recession and sharp rise in unemployment - and he's a Master Strategist, after all...
A link to a document entitled "leaving_the_eu", which we haven't done yet...
A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow.
The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.
Just VOTING to LEAVE would cause "an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty.....push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment."
Yes, unequivocal. The doom would have happened even if Cameron had got up on his hind legs and said the referendum was advisory, it only voted out due to the lies of racists fruitcakes and gadflies, were staying in and I am staying on as PM...
Is there any significance to yesterday's date? There was the bombing in New York, bomb in New Jersey, and stabbings in Minnesota, all of which look like they might have some terrorist link.
A former adviser to Tony Blair has told of his shock at witnessing an anti-Semitic rant at a Proms reception.
Martin Bright, a former Observer journalist who once worked for the former Prime Minister’s Faith Foundation, was horrified when BBC journalist Henrietta Foster was told by a fellow guest to ‘get back in the oven’ – a reference to the gas chambers used by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
The fellow guest, who has been identified by The Mail on Sunday as Dr Leslie Jones, the editor of the Quarterly Review magazine, made the comment in reference to an appearance Ms Foster made in My Nazi Legacy, a documentary about the children of Hitler’s officers.
< You said I was 'unthinkingly regressive' yesterday.
Would you point out which parts of your list you think I support (or is it all of them) ?
FYI I totally agreed with a comment you made recently on Islamic headgear so maybe you have regressive tendencies yourself.
I also support the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia and heterosexual civil partnerships. Perhaps you should add those to your list of regressive policies.
I came out in support of legalising possession and sale of drugs (and criminalising causing a nuisance or hazard while under the influence of them too) yesterday.
I've been thinking though what Theresa ought to do next. I think abolish probation and jail sentences below six months and instad they get a day in the stocks and anyone throwing things at them has immunity from assault and actual body harm but not GBH or homicide. Obviously the person in the stocks would need to beblindfolded so they cant see the person throwing things at them and carry out reprisals afterwards.
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.
Yes it would be very easy to say that.
It clearly is terrorism. How could the planting of multiple explosive devices in an area populated with civilians not be terrorism? It's practically the definition of terrorism!
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.
Yes it would be very easy to say that.
It clearly is terrorism. How could the planting of multiple explosive devices in a populated area not be terrorism?
The hand wringers say that terrorism doesn't have an internationally recognized consistent definition so we can't call these attacks terrorism....instead we get terms like "intentional acts".
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
'Lib Dem careers advice. Wonderful ammunition for local leaflets?
Sun Politics✔ @SunPolitics Lib Dem says schools should be able to suggest prostitution as a line of work to pupils http://thesun.uk'
Official, we now have two loony parties.
They don't help themselves, sigh.
They're back to being a cranky fringe movement. They still have plenty to say, but their pronouncements are not noticed by most voters and are of interest to an even smaller proportion.
Also, more evidence of lobbying for the Lib Dems to turn themselves into the Ukip of the 48%:
"The Lib Dems aren’t the parliamentary force they were when I worked for the party a decade ago. Under the inimitable "chat show" Charlie, the party commanded nearly 60 MPs, privileges at PMQs and seats on nearly every parliamentary committee. But in many ways, the party today is more aligned with the public than it has ever been. Tim must show that he is in touch with the 48 per cent and begin proving he is the man who can best represent them."
More aligned with the public than they have ever been? The mind boggles. A radical pro-Remain mirror-image of Ukip is liable to receive rather less support than the real thing, i.e. not much more than the 8.6% of the vote that they received in the last GE.
The Lib Dem rump is very weak, and its remaining support is too evenly spread to allow it to make much progress in future Parliamentary elections. They are trying to carve out territory for themselves on the soft centre-left at the very moment when that segment of politics is in collapse: majority of the electorate is, broadly speaking, right or right-leaning, and most committed anti-Tory progressives show no signs of being interested in jumping ship from a more radical Labour Party. The available market share for a wet centrist, Europhile party simply isn't large enough for them to re-establish themselves as a force.
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.
I think you're right about May but may be wrong about the Cameron/Osborne 'renegotiation'. Let's see what the Brexiteers achieve by comparison before we assume it was such a disaster. So far it is not looking great.
My favourite Hillary conspiracy story of the day so far is this - the crowds have been mocked up using with green screen trickery. The Hill got into trouble for alleged photoshopping/using a pix of NY rally as evidence of big crowds elsewhere.
There's some great detailed forensic video stuff on YouTube - and it's coming from Trumpers and Bernie fans. Must have taken them ages.
Having looked at a few - there's some odd things there. Images on some iPhones supposedly recording events, aren't showing what's right in front of them. It looks like people at the back have been green screened/photoshopped layered into the foreground or lifted from another staging after the event. There's no sign waving/Hillary at all in some too. All most amusing time wasting.
I think like the health stuff, there is an element truth.
It seems like Clinton campaign have been trying to hide / spin that when Clinton does do events they aren't massively well attended. Like health, they don't want a narrative of loads of more people turning up for Trump, or even that of Obama campaigns.
Same as they don't want Duracell Bunny Trump vs "weak" Clinton narrative to develop. I noticed that the press have really run with that Trump weighs 230 pounds...seems a bit sexist to me...I am half joking.
All of which doesn't equal the conspiracy theory of green screens, no crowds because some sort of Clinton brain injury etc etc etc.
trump has had lesser attended rallys as well. as with corbyn, rallies mean little
Of course. It means little to nothing, that wasn't my point.
My point was the conspiracy theories are able to get a start because there is an element of untruth / spin going on and now with everybody has a camera phone it is easy to get caught out.
An element of truth in the 'faked' moon landings?
If I may - the point is that after a landslide of lying caught up with Hillary - most people think she's a liar. They discount his braggart manner as just fairly harmless in comparison. IIRC he's about 15pts ahead on Trust.
That stories of body doubles, faked crowds et al even get beyond the outer fringes is a symptom of it. I noted this morning that even Sky had bent its coverage to imply Trump was irresponsible for saying bombing, after Hillary had said exactly the same thing at the same time. It's destroyed trust in the media.
Ratings in the US for their own media are 68% distrust. It's a terrible indictment. And ours are going down the same rabbit hole.
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.
Yes it would be very easy to say that.
It clearly is terrorism. How could the planting of multiple explosive devices in a populated area not be terrorism?
The hand wringers say that terrorism doesn't have an internationally recognized consistent definition so we can't call these attacks terrorism....instead we get terms like "intentional acts".
You know you're living in a world of double-speak when you see these consecutive headlines:
'People running for their lives' 'No evidence of terror'
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.
Yes it would be very easy to say that.
It clearly is terrorism. How could the planting of multiple explosive devices in an area populated with civilians not be terrorism? It's practically the definition of terrorism!
Perhaps they think the IRA did it in which case in New York eyes it couldnt possibly be terrorism?
"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.”"
Amusingly the wording implies that we SHOULD prevent people becoming accountants...
'Lib Dem careers advice. Wonderful ammunition for local leaflets?
Sun Politics✔ @SunPolitics Lib Dem says schools should be able to suggest prostitution as a line of work to pupils http://thesun.uk'
Official, we now have two loony parties.
They don't help themselves, sigh.
They're back to being a cranky fringe movement. They still have plenty to say, but their pronouncements are not noticed by most voters and are of interest to an even smaller proportion.
Also, more evidence of lobbying for the Lib Dems to turn themselves into the Ukip of the 48%:
"The Lib Dems aren’t the parliamentary force they were when I worked for the party a decade ago. Under the inimitable "chat show" Charlie, the party commanded nearly 60 MPs, privileges at PMQs and seats on nearly every parliamentary committee. But in many ways, the party today is more aligned with the public than it has ever been. Tim must show that he is in touch with the 48 per cent and begin proving he is the man who can best represent them."
More aligned with the public than they have ever been? The mind boggles. A radical pro-Remain mirror-image of Ukip is liable to receive rather less support than the real thing, i.e. not much more than the 8.6% of the vote that they received in the last GE.
The Lib Dem rump is very weak, and its remaining support is too evenly spread to allow it to make much progress in future Parliamentary elections. They are trying to carve out territory for themselves on the soft centre-left at the very moment when that segment of politics is in collapse: majority of the electorate is, broadly speaking, right or right-leaning, and most committed anti-Tory progressives show no signs of being interested in jumping ship from a more radical Labour Party. The available market share for a wet centrist, Europhile party simply isn't large enough for them to re-establish themselves as a force.
Agreed. The orange book philosophy of Laws et al was much more attractive but they had too many ex sdp lefties for that to become the party philosophy.
I suggest you read the text of the document, not just the url.....
The text that describes what might happen after we leave, which we haven't done yet...
No it doesn't. It describes the immediate effect after the vote and before negotiations
As I said below, the only thing tagged as 'immediate' is the predicted shock.
SeanT was all over this site a couple of days after the vote, bemoaning the dreadful mistake he thought he had made by voting leave. I'd take that as good evidence of shock, myself.
SeanT is good evidence of the over -use of a variety of artificial stimulants - and nothing else
These are the movements of the implied probabilities at the Betfair exchange over the past 40 hours. Note how Trump's price has moved since the bomb exploded in New York 11 hours ago.
I tilted my book in favour of trump last night @ 3-3.2 before the New York stuff.
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.
Yes it would be very easy to say that.
It clearly is terrorism. How could the planting of multiple explosive devices in an area populated with civilians not be terrorism? It's practically the definition of terrorism!
Perhaps they think the IRA did it in which case in New York eyes it couldnt possibly be terrorism?
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
What policies?
Well, there was that whole discussion about wanting to bomb the Europeans, by ourselves[5] or with the Russians[4], redefining Nato to disinclude the Europeans[1][2][3], then rolling back the Wilson/Jenkins/Mandelson/Crosland reforms[6]
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
The judiciary can't block it, the referendum was authorised by statute as was the Lisbon Treaty through which Article 50 will be triggered
If you look at what happened prior to 1918, many now Tory seats were Liberal and many now solid Labour seats were Tory.
After 1918 the lower middle class/upper working class Tory voters in industrial areas were swamped by newly enfranchised labourers voting er Labour.
It should have been curtains for the tories but they, aided by Lib splits were able to steal the Libs clothes and exploit fear of socialism and the idea that only the Tories could stop Labour.
Hence when the Tories became unpopular in the 1990s the Libdems marched back into a slew of those seats.
If the left of the Liberal party had been prepared to have an electoral agreement with the Tories not to stand against each other, the country would be a very different place with the parties I suspect eventually merging and mwrginalising the right of the Tory Party.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
What policies?
Well, there was that whole discussion about wanting to bomb the Europeans, by ourselves[5] or with the Russians[4], redefining Nato to disinclude the Europeans[1][2][3], then rolling back the Wilson/Jenkins/Mandelson/Crosland reforms[6]
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
What policies?
Well, there was that whole discussion about wanting to bomb the Europeans, by ourselves[5] or with the Russians[4], redefining Nato to disinclude the Europeans[1][2][3], then rolling back the Wilson/Jenkins/Mandelson/Crosland reforms[6]
I've called for a stocks in every town to replace the probation service and prison sentences up to six months upthread if you want to add another reference to something else that would give Guardian Readers the vapours
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.
Yes it would be very easy to say that.
It clearly is terrorism. How could the planting of multiple explosive devices in an area populated with civilians not be terrorism? It's practically the definition of terrorism!
Well if it's a domestic dispute then that couple is going to need some serious counselling.
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
A touch of hyperbole perhaps.
Simply would need Parliament passing a law activating article 50. At worst it would be a delay of a few months.
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
A touch of hyperbole perhaps.
Simply would need Parliament passing a law activating article 50. At worst it would be a delay of a few months.
Yes the scenario would only come to place in the event of parliament neglecting to pass such a law.
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
The judiciary can't block it, the referendum was authorised by statute as was the Lisbon Treaty through which Article 50 will be triggered
Ah yes, the Lisbon Treaty which was supposed to be just a “tidying up” exercise. - Article 50 really has come back to those that ignored their mandate and bite them on the backside.
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
I'm not saying they will block it, but they will force a proper vote by our elected representatives on the outcome, which to me is wholly sensible.
You forget in your victory that the vote for out was desperately narrow and that whilst I would accept a soft brexit I will fight something as utterly fucking self harming as hard brexit every single step of the way. There is no evidence that the 52% voted for hard brexit, in fact a high proportion didn't know what they were voting for at all. You're on bloody shaky ground and some of your leaders know it.
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.
I think you're right about May but may be wrong about the Cameron/Osborne 'renegotiation'. Let's see what the Brexiteers achieve by comparison before we assume it was such a disaster. So far it is not looking great.
Mr Felix, I wonder if you fancy a small wager, purely for charity. I think that there will be no deal between the UK and the EU and that it will end up with WTO rules (i.e. the UK trading with the EU on the same basis as Korea, the USA and the rest of the world). Fifty-quid to the winner's charity of choice if I am right or wrong by midsummer 2019.
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
A touch of hyperbole perhaps.
Simply would need Parliament passing a law activating article 50. At worst it would be a delay of a few months.
Yes the scenario would only come to place in the event of parliament neglecting to pass such a law.
Once article 50 is invoked, hard Brexit is the default (though even WTO rules would require some work). If Parliament rejects the Brexit package, we exit with no deal at all. It is not a default to current status.
I think that hard Brexit is very likely, and our negotiating position is stronger if we accept this rather than be negotiating over a barrel.
John Miller MSNBC panel SHOCKED to learn #Trump warned about 9/11 in Jan 2000, 19+ mo before attack! #SundayMorning #NeverForget https://t.co/Cew5d7SFeb
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
I'm not saying they will block it, but they will force a proper vote by our elected representatives on the outcome, which to me is wholly sensible.
You forget in your victory that the vote for out was desperately narrow and that whilst I would accept a soft brexit I will fight something as utterly fucking self harming as hard brexit every single step of the way. There is no evidence that the 52% voted for hard brexit, in fact a high proportion didn't know what they were voting for at all. You're on bloody shaky ground and some of your leaders know it.
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.
I don't believe May arouses strong feelings in the way that Thatcher did.Left of centre people do not despise her in the same way at all. To a great extent that might reflect her personality rather than policy , but she certainly lacks the hectoring, bossy and frequently provocative approach of Thatcher.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
What policies?
Well, there was that whole discussion about wanting to bomb the Europeans, by ourselves[5] or with the Russians[4], redefining Nato to disinclude the Europeans[1][2][3], then rolling back the Wilson/Jenkins/Mandelson/Crosland reforms[6]
Pisstaking hyperbole may reveal what a person really thinks in his heart. You made references to bottles of Cobra. Were you drinking at the time? (You don't have to tell me if you don't want to, it's a honest question)
John Miller MSNBC panel SHOCKED to learn #Trump warned about 9/11 in Jan 2000, 19+ mo before attack! #SundayMorning #NeverForget https://t.co/Cew5d7SFeb
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
A touch of hyperbole perhaps.
Simply would need Parliament passing a law activating article 50. At worst it would be a delay of a few months.
Yes the scenario would only come to place in the event of parliament neglecting to pass such a law.
...
I think that hard Brexit is very likely, and our negotiating position is stronger if we accept this rather than be negotiating over a barrel.
Of course it would be. As Cameron demonstrated, if you are not prepared to walk away from the table then you are begging not negotiating.
While I'm here, quick question: is gambling on the presidential election actually illegal in the United States? If so, is it a state or federal crime and what are the specific laws? I'm seeing references to illegality online, but I don't now if it's old legislation or just limited to Nevada
John Miller MSNBC panel SHOCKED to learn #Trump warned about 9/11 in Jan 2000, 19+ mo before attack! #SundayMorning #NeverForget https://t.co/Cew5d7SFeb
Lol. Those talking heads were speechless.
I honestly haven't had this much fun since ooohh - 23rd June. It's just so funny to see the faces on them all as their bigoted smuggery is punctured.
'Leave' for them will mean not just leaving the EU, but a whole raft of regressive policies.
What policies?
Well, there was that whole discussion about wanting to bomb the Europeans, by ourselves[5] or with the Russians[4], redefining Nato to disinclude the Europeans[1][2][3], then rolling back the Wilson/Jenkins/Mandelson/Crosland reforms[6]
A great problem with this site is its lack of institutional memory. That, and the tendency to link to dynamic instead of static sites, makes it exist in a perpetual present. It's an internet tendency generally, not OGH's fault nor the BTL posters, but it is annoying
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.
Do we have any idea of the proportion of Tory MP's that would be vehemently opposed to a hard Brexit. That is, WTO rules at best? Those that would prefer in to hard brexit, and might vote against a hard brexit package in a commons vote?
The judiciary may yet force this.
If the judiciary succeed in blocking Brexit, the best case is UKIP emulating the SNP s 2015 performance in most of England, the worst case is civil war.
The judiciary can't block it, the referendum was authorised by statute as was the Lisbon Treaty through which Article 50 will be triggered
Ah yes, the Lisbon Treaty which was supposed to be just a “tidying up” exercise. - Article 50 really has come back to those that ignored their mandate and bite them on the backside.
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.
Yes it would be very easy to say that.
It clearly is terrorism. How could the planting of multiple explosive devices in a populated area not be terrorism?
The hand wringers say that terrorism doesn't have an internationally recognized consistent definition so we can't call these attacks terrorism....instead we get terms like "intentional acts".
So 2500 people died on 11/9 due to an intentional act. Yeh.
Comments
'Lib Dem careers advice. Wonderful ammunition for local leaflets?
Sun Politics✔ @SunPolitics
Lib Dem says schools should be able to suggest prostitution as a line of work to pupils
http://thesun.uk'
Official, we now have two loony parties.
It is actually i didn't like the way he behaved, and he comes from a different strand of Conservatism to me, but I respect his talents and see how he could play a big part in making the next phase of our national journey a success, but we will all have to act like grown ups to make it happen. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones.
It's a shame you are not one of them.
The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.
Just VOTING to LEAVE would cause "an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty.....push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment."
Black Monday did for the Tories, which would be small beer by comparison (and less obviously a consequence of something the Tories went round advocating prior)
Would you point out which parts of your list you think I support (or is it all of them) ?
FYI I totally agreed with a comment you made recently on Islamic headgear so maybe you have regressive tendencies yourself.
I also support the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia and heterosexual civil partnerships. Perhaps you should add those to your list of regressive policies.
The judiciary may yet force this.
On the one hand we have proposals for selective education, and early suggestions that there is to be a less tolerant approach to crime (penalties for texting whilst driving to be doubled, although frankly I'd be all for stripping the licences of anyone caught using a handheld mobile at the wheel for a first offence - it shows a flagrant disregard for the gamble they're taking with the lives of others.) A redoubling of efforts to deport foreign prisoners in British jails would also be welcome.
On the other hand, liberal reforms to personal freedoms - for example same sex marriage (which May played a significant part in bringing about in the first place) and employment rights for pregnant women and new mothers - will be maintained and defended.
The evidence of the referendum suggests that much, perhaps most, of public opinion has been wilfully ignored by a consensus body of liberal and Europhile politicians for many years. The changes which have taken place in the directions and relative fortunes of the major political parties, following both the last GE and the EU vote, suggest that British politics is recalibrating itself to more truly reflect the diversity of voter opinion. Whilst it is true that this has created the temporary problem of a dominant Conservative Party with the potential to sideline the fractured opposition after the next election, in the longer term this can surely only be a good thing?
And you can't argue that we don't now have some uncertainty.
Business decisions are being taken now that will affect the economy next year and thereafter. Whether there is a recession and rise in unemployment isn't yet clear - although I agree that the early signs are relatively hopeful that we may escape this, pre-Brexit at least.
You are reading the word "immediate" in the quote to apply to everything that follows, whereas as an adjective in the sentence strictly it only refers to the shock.
Whether it should be subject to VAT depends on the earnings of the prostitute. If they are over the statutory limit then he/she must register for VAT and charge the tax to their clients. If the earnings is less than the cut off depending on the advice of their financial advisor they may still choose to register for VAT.
I stand corrected.
There's some great detailed forensic video stuff on YouTube - and it's coming from Trumpers and Bernie fans. Must have taken them ages.
Having looked at a few - there's some odd things there. Images on some iPhones supposedly recording events, aren't showing what's right in front of them. It looks like people at the back have been green screened/photoshopped layered into the foreground or lifted from another staging after the event. There's no sign waving/Hillary at all in some too. All most amusing time wasting.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-democrats-should-panic-if-the-polls-still-look-like-this-in-a-week/
Written before NY bomb attack.
Always remembering they can offset input VAT against output VAT.
Turkey used to have nationalised brothels, it was part of Attaturk's legacy so is of course disappearing fast. I somehow doubt we'll ever see that as Labour party policy.
SeanT was all over this site a couple of days after the vote, bemoaning the dreadful mistake he thought he had made by voting leave. I'd take that as good evidence of shock, myself.
On topic, no, it would be like Churchill becoming Secretary of State for Appeasment.
Never going to happen
This is only going to get worse i'm afraid.
It seems like Clinton campaign have been trying to hide / spin that when Clinton does do events they aren't massively well attended. Like health, they don't want a narrative of loads of more people turning up for Trump, or even that of Obama campaigns.
Same as they don't want Duracell Bunny Trump vs "weak" Clinton narrative to develop. I noticed that the press have really run with that Trump weighs 230 pounds...seems a bit sexist to me...I am half joking.
All of which doesn't equal the conspiracy theory of green screens, no crowds because some sort of Clinton brain injury etc etc etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXcver4v9fI
her lead has narrowed. i just dispute that trump is making headway with any ethnic minority group
My point was the conspiracy theories are able to get a start because there is an element of untruth / spin going on and now with everybody has a camera phone it is easy to get caught out.
Political flexibility isn't necessarily a weakness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37378138/the-night-the-clubs-fell-silent-for-a-minute
"Announcing her decision to rejoin the Tories, Baroness Nicholson said it was because of Theresa May's "real commitment to delivering for the next generation and building a country that works for everyone".
She added: "I am rejoining the Conservative Party with tremendous pleasure. My energies are dedicated to fighting for our new PM and her policies.
"Her education speech last week showed she leads a party with a real commitment to delivering for the next generation and building a country that works for everyone.
"We in the Conservative Party have a great history of diversity, optimism in our people's creativity and success.
"My greatest strengths are the Conservative strengths and I will be fighting for Britain from the Conservative benches from now on in."
http://v4.capitalfm.com/radio/news/uk-world/baroness-defects-back-to-tories-after-20-year/
The document covers the two years after the vote - and before we Leave - and predicts four quarters of negative growth (or worse) and Increase in unemployment of between 500-800 thousand. Still early days, but so far, that's looking a tad pessimistic...
As a relatively mundane example, the retail price of wine hasn't yet risen, because UK retailers had significant stock and the larger ones have hedged their forward currency exposure. But, without a significant recovery in the £, bottle prices are forecast to be on the increase by early next year.
...apparently
Martin Bright, a former Observer journalist who once worked for the former Prime Minister’s Faith Foundation, was horrified when BBC journalist Henrietta Foster was told by a fellow guest to ‘get back in the oven’ – a reference to the gas chambers used by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
The fellow guest, who has been identified by The Mail on Sunday as Dr Leslie Jones, the editor of the Quarterly Review magazine, made the comment in reference to an appearance Ms Foster made in My Nazi Legacy, a documentary about the children of Hitler’s officers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3794776/Holocaust-film-maker-told-oven-literary-magazine-editor-witness-reveals-anti-Semitic-abuse-Corbyn-supporters.html
I've been thinking though what Theresa ought to do next. I think abolish probation and jail sentences below six months and instad they get a day in the stocks and anyone throwing things at them has immunity from assault and actual body harm but not GBH or homicide. Obviously the person in the stocks would need to beblindfolded so they cant see the person throwing things at them and carry out reprisals afterwards.
A stocks in every town - it would save a fortune.
Life is much more fun when you are right wing
Also, more evidence of lobbying for the Lib Dems to turn themselves into the Ukip of the 48%:
"The Lib Dems aren’t the parliamentary force they were when I worked for the party a decade ago. Under the inimitable "chat show" Charlie, the party commanded nearly 60 MPs, privileges at PMQs and seats on nearly every parliamentary committee. But in many ways, the party today is more aligned with the public than it has ever been. Tim must show that he is in touch with the 48 per cent and begin proving he is the man who can best represent them."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2016/09/grammar-schools-dont-work-and-theyre-dead-arrival-house-lords
More aligned with the public than they have ever been? The mind boggles. A radical pro-Remain mirror-image of Ukip is liable to receive rather less support than the real thing, i.e. not much more than the 8.6% of the vote that they received in the last GE.
The Lib Dem rump is very weak, and its remaining support is too evenly spread to allow it to make much progress in future Parliamentary elections. They are trying to carve out territory for themselves on the soft centre-left at the very moment when that segment of politics is in collapse: majority of the electorate is, broadly speaking, right or right-leaning, and most committed anti-Tory progressives show no signs of being interested in jumping ship from a more radical Labour Party. The available market share for a wet centrist, Europhile party simply isn't large enough for them to re-establish themselves as a force.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/777457500618711040
That stories of body doubles, faked crowds et al even get beyond the outer fringes is a symptom of it. I noted this morning that even Sky had bent its coverage to imply Trump was irresponsible for saying bombing, after Hillary had said exactly the same thing at the same time. It's destroyed trust in the media.
Ratings in the US for their own media are 68% distrust. It's a terrible indictment. And ours are going down the same rabbit hole.
'People running for their lives'
'No evidence of terror'
Do you mind me asking how your book is balanced?
[1] this
[2] this
[3] this
[4] this
[5] this
[6] this
After 1918 the lower middle class/upper working class Tory voters in industrial areas were swamped by newly enfranchised labourers voting er Labour.
It should have been curtains for the tories but they, aided by Lib splits were able to steal the Libs clothes and exploit fear of socialism and the idea that only the Tories could stop Labour.
Hence when the Tories became unpopular in the 1990s the Libdems marched back into a slew of those seats.
If the left of the Liberal party had been prepared to have an electoral agreement with the Tories not to stand against each other, the country would be a very different place with the parties I suspect eventually merging and mwrginalising the right of the Tory Party.
I've called for a stocks in every town to replace the probation service and prison sentences up to six months upthread if you want to add another reference to something else that would give Guardian Readers the vapours
Simply would need Parliament passing a law activating article 50. At worst it would be a delay of a few months.
You forget in your victory that the vote for out was desperately narrow and that whilst I would accept a soft brexit I will fight something as utterly fucking self harming as hard brexit every single step of the way. There is no evidence that the 52% voted for hard brexit, in fact a high proportion didn't know what they were voting for at all. You're on bloody shaky ground and some of your leaders know it.
I think that hard Brexit is very likely, and our negotiating position is stronger if we accept this rather than be negotiating over a barrel.
John Miller
MSNBC panel SHOCKED to learn #Trump warned about 9/11 in Jan 2000, 19+ mo before attack!
#SundayMorning #NeverForget https://t.co/Cew5d7SFeb
No need for you to leave. Just engage some synops before posting....