I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
ADH was a much underrated PM, rescuing the Tories from a disastrous position under Macmillan and very nearly pulled off a surprise victory, albeit one that would have given him all sorts of problems.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
I don't disagree. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether she has what it takes - and at the moment, I really have no idea.
In a place that voted 70% remain there are surely enough people that voted tory in 2015 but also remain, that won't back him this time.
I am still struggling with the idea that most voters outside political obsessives like us, and university talking shops (who don't vote) actually is going to be engaged with further discussion about BrExit and remain/leave.
Most of the public voters whichever way, saw the vote, accepted it, and got on with their lives. The idea that a Tory voter in Richmond is suddenly going to vote LD because he doesn't like the cut of Zac's BrExit jib seems pretty far fetched to me, especially when they knew he was a Leaver before they elected him in 2015.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
I find economics really difficult, but our current problem seems to be a fall in the value of sterling. Even I know the relationship between unnecessary interest rate cuts, unnecessary signalling of further future unnecessary interest rate cuts, and the value of the currency. Thanks, Carney.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Death threats from Trump campaign aide to Megan Kely
That's a death threat?
619 made a total fool of him/herself posting pro-Clinton propaganda. Watch what happens to him/her after this election. Or rather don't, as the poster will mysteriously disappear.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Seems the Director of the WTO disagrees with you:
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
Afternoon all just perusing The Times...£84bn hole in public finances...GM maybe moving production of the Vauxhall Astra abroad...and Dublin making a play for the European Medicines Agency and Banking Authority.
What empowering, sovereignty-boosting reading.
Nissan walked out of a Face to Face meeting with the PM at Downing St with " the assurances I needed. " so no surprise GM will cash in as well. The first big manufacturer to announce they are pulling out *pre* Brexit will trigger a run on the £ and a political crisis. It's Corporate Welfare Christmas. Tata Steel got a £2bn promise by timing it's " closure " announcement pre referendum. " Take Back Control " my fat hairy backside.
EVERYTHING we have seen so far is positioning, a series of feints and bluffs. The banks threaten to quit so they get a better deal, the car companies, ditto, and so on, and so forth.
Higher taxes, more borrowing and further spending cuts so we can pay companies to stay here when we voluntarily leave the single market. It's brilliant!
Death threats from Trump campaign aide to Megan Kely
That's a death threat?
619 made a total fool of him/herself posting pro-Clinton propaganda. Watch what happens to him/her after this election. Or rather don't, as the poster will mysteriously disappear.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
ADH was a much underrated PM, rescuing the Tories from a disastrous position under Macmillan and very nearly pulled off a surprise victory, albeit one that would have given him all sorts of problems.
I'm planning to do a thread this weekend about the PMs who became PMs without a general election victory and avoid the mishaps they generally experience.
It hasn't been a happy experience for most recent examples.
Gordon Brown - You could argue he is responsible for Corbyn, if he hadn't kneecapped any potential rival between 1997-2010. He actively destabilised his PM
John Major - Did well initially, but led the Tories to their greatest shellacking in nearly a century
Jim Callaghan - Very unlucky, had he held a general election in 1978 he might have won, the unions truly shafted him
ADH - I get the feeling he was weighed down by the manner of becoming PM.
You're right on me being harsh on ADH, he played cricket and I loved his actions during the attempted kidnapping of him
Edit - I forgot to add Anthony Eden to the list, but that's self explanatory
In a place that voted 70% remain there are surely enough people that voted tory in 2015 but also remain, that won't back him this time.
I am still struggling with the idea that most voters outside political obsessives like us, and university talking shops (who don't vote) actually is going to be engaged with further discussion about BrExit and remain/leave.
Most of the public voters whichever way, saw the vote, accepted it, and got on with their lives. The idea that a Tory voter in Richmond is suddenly going to vote LD because he doesn't like the cut of Zac's BrExit jib seems pretty far fetched to me, especially when they knew he was a Leaver before they elected him in 2015.
It's not Zac's brexit views themself that are the problem, and it's not a revenge vote, but rather a generic 'punch the government' by-election, and Zac is just in the way, and can't really defend himself on the brexit front. You can accept the vote while being critical of the direction (or lack of) that it's taking, and want to signal a warning shot to the government over it.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
Zac promised at the 2015 general election that he would resign and fight a by-election if the government backed LHR3 - as it now has, and as he has.
If his threat to do so was so unacceptable, he should never have been approved as a Conservative candidate. On the other hand, if that threat was acceptable, then it follows that the party ought to tolerate the inevitable consequence should the circumstances come about.
In fact, not only was Goldsmith approved as a candidate for 2015 but he was further honoured by the party when it chose him to be the London mayoral candidate; one of the most high-profile positions in the party.
The reality is that whether he's taking the Conservative whip or not, he'll still vote pretty much exactly the same either way so in terms of the government's majority, it makes virtually no difference. How he goes about winning a nomination for 2020 is a different matter. I doubt he'd get a second clear run.
Who is making the governments case in their own seat ?
Death threats from Trump campaign aide to Megan Kely
That's a death threat?
619 made a total fool of him/herself posting pro-Clinton propaganda. Watch what happens to him/her after this election. Or rather don't, as the poster will mysteriously disappear.
The most bizarre thing is why spend all this time propagandising people who can't vote in the election. IOS & friends I can sort of understand, at least they had the (microscopic) chance of persuading people to vote for Miliband.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Seems the Director of the WTO disagrees with you:
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
I'm sure lots of bright people have been working on scenarios and strategies. Unfortunately, none of them are decision-makers. The ones with actual power are almost uniformly dim.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Seems the Director of the WTO disagrees with you:
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
What would self-interest look like for the WTO? I don't know enough about their operation.
The by-election, as most by-elections, will be a referendum on the current government. Clearly, the voters of RP have the opportunity to reduce the govt's majority, which they may see as a good way of restraining its power. I imagine that a lot of the LD leaflets will be about the "real" Theresa May versus the one-nation image she tries to give herself.
Clearly also, the voters of RP like(d) Zac - they re-elected him last year with a thumping majority. Since then, the mayoral election and Brexit have eroded his popularity somewhat, but a 23,000 majority takes a lot of eroding. The LibDems will have to run a perfect campaign if they're going to win; the contest is so intriguing that I'd advise them to do a good bit of Luntzing before they start.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
ADH was a much underrated PM, rescuing the Tories from a disastrous position under Macmillan and very nearly pulled off a surprise victory, albeit one that would have given him all sorts of problems.
I'm planning to do a thread this weekend about
how...
More people approve of Theresa May’s performance regarding the ongoing negotiations over Brexit than disapprove (58% total approve figure compared to 25% total disapprove figure)
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
Cameron's decision was mostly out of his hands: he had no choice but to call the referendum. He promised one after 2010, but got five more years due to the coalition, which he could justifiably use as a delaying tactic. There is no way the 'bastards' would have let him get away without one in majority government - the same anti-EU fanatics who have caused the party so much harm over the years.
After a majority in 2015, he had no choice. The timing can be quibbled over: would he have done any better (from his view) holding it in (say) 2018? Perhaps, or perhaps events would have worsened.
The tragedy for him is that a referendum in 2012 would have seen us remaining in the EU. In fact, a referendum any time before 2012 would probably have seen us remain. Events have gone poorly for the EU since then.
In fact, I wonder if Clegg and the Lib Dems now regret not agreeing to one in 2011 or 2012, when it might have been winnable and they would have had more power to influence events?
Mr. Jessop, worth recalling an early Clegg action that earnt him contempt was a whipped abstention on a vote to have a referendum on Lisbon, on the basis it was meaningless and the true vote (I think this was 2010 Lib Dem policy) was to have an In/Out referendum.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
ADH was a much underrated PM, rescuing the Tories from a disastrous position under Macmillan and very nearly pulled off a surprise victory, albeit one that would have given him all sorts of problems.
I'm planning to do a thread this weekend about
how...
More people approve of Theresa May’s performance regarding the ongoing negotiations over Brexit than disapprove (58% total approve figure compared to 25% total disapprove figure)
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
I am currently lying in a bed in a suite in a five star hotel in Vancouver having - so far - done over £100,000-worth of deals in under a week in Canada, which is pretty good for us. Leaving the single market makes absolutely no difference to me personally and will have no impact on our business, as we'll make sure we stay within it. The coming spending cuts and tax rises will adversely affect plenty of others though.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
ADH was a much underrated PM, rescuing the Tories from a disastrous position under Macmillan and very nearly pulled off a surprise victory, albeit one that would have given him all sorts of problems.
I'm planning to do a thread this weekend about
how...
More people approve of Theresa May’s performance regarding the ongoing negotiations over Brexit than disapprove (58% total approve figure compared to 25% total disapprove figure)
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Seems the Director of the WTO disagrees with you:
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
I'm sure lots of bright people have been working on scenarios and strategies. Unfortunately, none of them are decision-makers. The ones with actual power are almost uniformly dim.
If you look at the CVs of the Cabinet, they really aren't dim.
Greening went from Rotherham and a comprehensive to an MBA at the London Business School
Javid was a very successful banker
Greg Clark went to Cambridge then took a Phd at the LSE
Hammond did PPE (yes yes) at Oxford then had an impressive business career
Matthew Hancock took an MPhil from Cambridge after his PPE from Oxford
Boris Johnson is one of the most intelligent and erudite politicians of his generation
If you want actual "dim" then Liam Fox and Leadsom might fit the bill if you're feeling deeply uncharitable. But I suggest real dimness should be sought on the Labour benches, starting with leader Jeremy Corbyn who dropped out of North London Poly after one year, and hasn't had an original thought since.
Nah, Labour have some top quality people in their cabinet, Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon both attended the finest university in the world, Cambridge.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
ADH was a much underrated PM, rescuing the Tories from a disastrous position under Macmillan and very nearly pulled off a surprise victory, albeit one that would have given him all sorts of problems.
I'm planning to do a thread this weekend about
how...
More people approve of Theresa May’s performance regarding the ongoing negotiations over Brexit than disapprove (58% total approve figure compared to 25% total disapprove figure)
In a place that voted 70% remain there are surely enough people that voted tory in 2015 but also remain, that won't back him this time.
I am still struggling with the idea that most voters outside political obsessives like us, and university talking shops (who don't vote) actually is going to be engaged with further discussion about BrExit and remain/leave.
Most of the public voters whichever way, saw the vote, accepted it, and got on with their lives. The idea that a Tory voter in Richmond is suddenly going to vote LD because he doesn't like the cut of Zac's BrExit jib seems pretty far fetched to me, especially when they knew he was a Leaver before they elected him in 2015.
It's not Zac's brexit views themself that are the problem, and it's not a revenge vote, but rather a generic 'punch the government' by-election, and Zac is just in the way, and can't really defend himself on the brexit front. You can accept the vote while being critical of the direction (or lack of) that it's taking, and want to signal a warning shot to the government over it.
The public just gave the government, and the Establishment, the biggest punch of all, by voting Leave. Their anger is vented. The Tories have a huge lead in the polls. Zac will get some sympathy for his principles, though others will be bored or irritated. The absolutely passioniate Remainers in his constituency will likely be Lib voters already.
Zac's got a huge majority which will be seriously reduced, but I doubt he will lose.
I think it's entirely possible his majority will be massively cut in numbers but hardly at all in percentage terms, owing to a lousy turn out as the local voters fail to get engaged with the by-election. They knew Zac was a leaver, and anti-heathrow last time, nothing has changed.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
She's inept, if she can mess it up with the Governor of the Bank of England, she's going to struggle with the 27 nations of the EU.
"Within hours of May criticizing loose monetary policy in her Conservative Conference speech this month, her office moved to limit the damage by reassuring Carney the words were clumsily expressed, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Treasury -- which wasn’t consulted on the speech -- has since been taking a more active role in the crafting of May’s statements on the economy.
The government’s overtures to mend the relationship with Carney come as he counts down to a decision by year end on whether to leave the BOE as planned in 2018 or serve a full eight-year term until 2021."
ADH was a much underrated PM, rescuing the Tories from a disastrous position under Macmillan and very nearly pulled off a surprise victory, albeit one that would have given him all sorts of problems.
I'm planning to do a thread this weekend about
how...
More people approve of Theresa May’s performance regarding the ongoing negotiations over Brexit than disapprove (58% total approve figure compared to 25% total disapprove figure)
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
The eastward expansion was a miracle. A huge slab of ex Soviet dictatorships transitioned to free liberal democracy almost without a hitch. The cost in external audit was peanuts by historical standards. And to varying degrees the eastward expansion has made those nations richer. Compare and contrast say with the experiences of decolonisation or the Arab Spring or nation building in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya. Eastward expansion has been a miracle. A particularly cheap miracle. For at least 5 centuries Britain has been an open, trading nation dedicated to stopping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
Mr. Jessop, worth recalling an early Clegg action that earnt him contempt was a whipped abstention on a vote to have a referendum on Lisbon, on the basis it was meaningless and the true vote (I think this was 2010 Lib Dem policy) was to have an In/Out referendum.
Interestingly, didn't Farron resign from the front bench over the vote over the referendum in 2008 or 9? He wanted one then, whilst Clegg wanted to abstain? (I hope, from memory).
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Seems the Director of the WTO disagrees with you:
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
I'm sure lots of bright people have been working on scenarios and strategies. Unfortunately, none of them are decision-makers. The ones with actual power are almost uniformly dim.
If you look at the CVs of the Cabinet, they really aren't dim.
Greening went from Rotherham and a comprehensive to an MBA at the London Business School
Javid was a very successful banker
Greg Clark went to Cambridge then took a Phd at the LSE
Hammond did PPE (yes yes) at Oxford then had an impressive business career
Matthew Hancock took an MPhil from Cambridge after his PPE from Oxford
Boris Johnson is one of the most intelligent and erudite politicians of his generation
If you want actual "dim" then Liam Fox and Leadsom might fit the bill if you're feeling deeply uncharitable. But I suggest real dimness should be sought on the Labour benches, starting with leader Jeremy Corbyn who dropped out of North London Poly after one year, and hasn't had an original thought since.
Nah, Labour have some top quality people in their cabinet, Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon both attended the finest university in the world, Cambridge.
Was there a new PB rule to refer to him always as Richard Burgon TFC?
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Seems the Director of the WTO disagrees with you:
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
I'm sure lots of bright people have been working on scenarios and strategies. Unfortunately, none of them are decision-makers. The ones with actual power are almost uniformly dim.
If you look at the CVs of the Cabinet, they really aren't dim.
Greening went from Rotherham and a comprehensive to an MBA at the London Business School
Javid was a very successful banker
Greg Clark went to Cambridge then took a Phd at the LSE
Hammond did PPE (yes yes) at Oxford then had an impressive business career
Matthew Hancock took an MPhil from Cambridge after his PPE from Oxford
Boris Johnson is one of the most intelligent and erudite politicians of his generation
If you want actual "dim" then Liam Fox and Leadsom might fit the bill if you're feeling deeply uncharitable. But I suggest real dimness should be sought on the Labour benches, starting with leader Jeremy Corbyn who dropped out of North London Poly after one year, and hasn't had an original thought since.
Nah, Labour have some top quality people in their cabinet, Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon both attended the finest university in the world, Cambridge.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin'
Cameron's decision was mostly out of his hands: he had no choice but to call the referendum. He promised one after 2010, but got five more years due to the coalition, which he could justifiably use as a delaying tactic. There is no way the 'bastards' would have let him get away without one in majority government - the same anti-EU fanatics who have caused the party so much harm over the years.?
No that won't wash.
He promised the referendum.
Why should people, "bastards" or otherwise let him back away from a promise, if he didn't believe it, or want to do it, he should not have promised it. It wasnt the "bastards" that screwed him, it was his own lack of integrity.
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
But both TSE's heroes, Cameron & Osborne told us that leaving the EU meant leaving the sSingle Market - so it must be what we voted for.....
The Leavers airily dismissed that as 'Project Fear' at the time. In fact, the whole tenor of the Leave campaign was: we can carry on more or less as before except that we can now elect governments to tinker with things should we so wish. Although some of the dimmer Leavers on the fringes believed this, it's now painfully apparent that the Leave establishment had a hidden agenda and always intended to unleash a maelstrom. It was political history's greatest fraud.
Abbott is genuinely clever, I think. Just a bit mad, and a terrible narcissist.
Someone said to me that Diane Abbott is very easy to wind up publicly on certain topics, which should make for an interesting general election campaign.
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
The eastward expansion was a miracle. A huge slab of ex Soviet dictatorships transitioned to free liberal democracy almost without a hitch. The cost in external audit was peanuts by historical standards. And to varying degrees the eastward expansion has made those nations richer. Compare and contrast say with the experiences of decolonisation or the Arab Spring or nation building in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya. Eastward expansion has been a miracle. A particularly cheap miracle. For at least 5 centuries Britain has been an open, trading nation dedicated to stopping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
You mean aside from it denuding places like Lithuania of a large chunk of its most able and educated people, comprising rather more than a third of its population, and the systematic asset stripping of exceptional talent from most of the eastern europe to provide cheap labour in the west.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
Cameron's decision was mostly out of his hands: he had no choice but to call the referendum. He promised one after 2010, but got five more years due to the coalition, which he could justifiably use as a delaying tactic. There is no way the 'bastards' would have let him get away without one in majority government - the same anti-EU fanatics who have caused the party so much harm over the years.?
No that won't wash.
He promised the referendum.
Why should people, "bastards" or otherwise let him back away from a promise, if he didn't believe it, or want to do it, he should not have promised it. It wasnt the "bastards" that screwed him, it was his own lack of integrity.
Rubbish. He made the promise of the referendum because of the euroscepticism within the party. No leader would call a referendum if they could possibly avoid it: it costs too much fiscally and politically, and carries too much risk.
And you can bet that if they felt they were going to lose, and lose badly - AV ref badly - the bastards would have been looking for ways out. Fortunately for them it came at the right time.
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
The eastward expansion was a miracle. A huge slab of ex Soviet dictatorships transitioned to free liberal democracy almost without a hitch. The cost in external audit was peanuts by historical standards. And to varying degrees the eastward expansion has made those nations richer. Compare and contrast say with the experiences of decolonisation or the Arab Spring or nation building in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya. Eastward expansion has been a miracle. A particularly cheap miracle. For at least 5 centuries Britain has been an open, trading nation dedicated to stopping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
You mean aside from it denuding places like Lithuania of a large chunk of its most able and educated people, comprising rather more than a third of its population, and the systematic asset stripping of exceptional talent from most of the eastern europe to provide cheap labour in the west.
It's a fair point. I've always seen the Accession as a great thing, and good for Britain (I've got no beef with Polish plumbers, its Pakistani jihadis that worry me), however when you read the extraordinary story of Lithuania's falling population - half of its emigres have gone to Britain - you do see there is a harrowing downside.
The big mistake from the EU's perspective was making the transitional arrangements optional. They shouldn't have given Blair the opportunity to open up full access to the UK in advance of the other major economies. That's what $%^ed it all up politically.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
No referendum pledge, no GE result.
That being the case he should have recognised Leave were going to win, and led the Leave campaign, this would have given three advantages
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin'
There. Is. No. Strategy.
(I know it's on the list but really..)
You're privy to the PM's innermost thoughts, then ?
The truth is that at the moment we have a Schroedinger's Strategy: it conceivably exists (or possibly not) - but a superposition can only remain stable for so long.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
No referendum pledge, no GE result.
That being the case he should have recognised Leave were going to win, and led the Leave campaign, this would have given three advantages
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
You mean Cameron should have done something he felt was wrong (campaign for leave) just to keep power?
That would have put him in the Boris league of ner-do-wells
But his total and greatest failure was "the deal". First, in overselling it in his Bloomberg speech, second, in getting almost nothing of salience from Brussels (because he'd already told them he would never campaign for Leave), third, in not going to the people saying this is the deal, what do you guys think, and getting a big F Off and then going back to Europe again for more, fourth in pretending the deal was great when even his Cabinet knew it was shit, fifth pretending it was great thereby taking us for fools, etc etc etc
Cameron totally and I mean TOTALLY blew it. That deal will be written on political gravestone. Nothing else.
There was a good article by one of Dave's advisers that was linked-to on here the other week. It turns out that the deal - in particular the protections it gave to the City of London - was actually quite good. Problem is that the good bits were too abstruse and technical to sell to the masses, so they decided not to waste their energies on it. A shame but understandable - in the shrill and feverish atmosphere whipped up by the naysayers at the time, it was doomed never to get a good hearing.
That being the case he should have recognised Leave were going to win, and led the Leave campaign, this would have given three advantages
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
You mean Cameron should have done something he felt was wrong (campaign for leave) just to keep power?
That would have put him in the Boris league of ner-do-wells
No. I mean he should have done what was pragmatic to pursue the interest of his country, which is what he is paid to do. I dont have the slightest interest in his personal feelings. Like the Irish cake baker, he is paid to provide the service irrespective of his personal feelings on the matter.
Which part of the shrivelling carcass of the EU is supposed to appeal to us?
I don't care about the EU. I care about the single market.
It's shrinking as a part of world trade. The eastward expansion has been detrimental to us socially and has been of little apparent value economically.
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
The eastward expansion was a miracle. A huge slab of ex Soviet dictatorships transitioned to free liberal democracy almost without a hitch. The cost in external audit was peanuts by historical standards. And to varying degrees the eastward expansion has made those nations richer. Compare and contrast say with the experiences of decolonisation or the Arab Spring or nation building in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya. Eastward expansion has been a miracle. A particularly cheap miracle. For at least 5 centuries Britain has been an open, trading nation dedicated to stopping a single angle power dominating Europe. The idea extending the zone of free market liberal democracies on our own continent is detrimental to us is absurd.
You mean aside from it denuding places like Lithuania of a large chunk of its most able and educated people, comprising rather more than a third of its population, and the systematic asset stripping of exceptional talent from most of the eastern europe to provide cheap labour in the west.
" Denuded " ? " Asset Stripped " ? It's not the Atlantic Slave Trade we are talking about. The Four Freedoms were extended to them and some chose to use them. And if the brightest and best ( plus a few begging gangs ) of these countries choose to come and become richer and make us richer and repatriate a little earnings and make their home countries richer and become anglophone and anglophile before a chunk of them go back home then Hip Hip F*CKING HORRAY as far as I'm concerned.
In a sense Cameron proved Leave's point for it. Leave contended the British people didn;t have sovereignty, and Dave proved it, by the very act of asking for powers back.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
I don't understand the kerfuffle about this by-election. Letting Zac stand uncontested means he will likely win, then he can be welcomed back into the Tory party after the parliamentary LHR3 vote or a fresh GE, with his principles intact.
Standing against him divides the Tory vote and would hand the seat to the LDs. This is sensible from the Tories.
As for Ms May, she has her faults but she successfully steered herself, unopposed, to Number 10, by quietly watching all her enemies self-destruct. Politically she is astute.
Things have come to a pretty pass when it's SeanT who writes the sensible boring post, but this is exactly right. The PM didn't have much choice, and (given the likely position of the local party), she almost certainly had no choice.
Yes, it's my new persona. Boring sensible poster.
My new boring sensible opinion on Ms May is that she really is quite canny, and cunning, but she is also leading a divided party, facing an epochal challenge - with a tiny parliamentary majority.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
People like to have heroes and villains. Cameroons need someone to hate on because their man made a huge error.
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
No referendum pledge, no GE result.
That being the case he should have recognised Leave were going to win, and led the Leave campaign, this would have given three advantages
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
He wanted to stay in the EU. Which renders much of the above moot.
I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
That being the case he should have recognised Leave were going to win, and led the Leave campaign, this would have given three advantages
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
You mean Cameron should have done something he felt was wrong (campaign for leave) just to keep power?
That would have put him in the Boris league of ner-do-wells
No. I mean he should have done what was pragmatic to pursue the interest of his country, which is what he is paid to do. I dont have the slightest interest in his personal feelings. Like the Irish cake baker, he is paid to provide the service irrespective of his personal feelings on the matter.
His personal view was that the interests of the country was to stay in the EU, subject to reforms. Your opinion on that is different, but that was obviously his. You are asking him to do what his critics always accused him of.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
"acquired" ?
Bought or ..
I've got sympathy for my friends particularly those in science who are screwed by Brexit (Science loss, they'll probably go into something else) but not really for any (Non UK person) who just wants our passport out of convienience.
In a sense Cameron proved Leave's point for it. Leave contended the British people didn;t have sovereignty, and Dave proved it, by the very act of asking for powers back.
If Dave had backed LEAVE, he would still be an MP and PM.
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
Not with all the Con REMAINERS on here. They're itching for her to fail at every turn!
She's a decent leader in a very difficult position. But if she can pull off a relatively pain-free Brexit, she'll go down as the greatest PM since Thatcher.
Not with all the Con REMAINERS on here. They're itching for her to fail at every turn!
I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
Someone said to me African American subsamples are like Scottish subsamples in GB wide polls.
Every so often they'll throw out a result that will make you laugh/go wow.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin'
There. Is. No. Strategy.
(I know it's on the list but really..)
You're privy to the PM's innermost thoughts, then ?
The truth is that at the moment we have a Schroedinger's Strategy: it conceivably exists (or possibly not) - but a superposition can only remain stable for so long.
The PM has a difficult and unenviable task. There is no shame in not knowing where to start.
As for plans, I think people misunderestimate how long it takes the civil service to gear up.
"Experts", meanwhile, are not being consulted. Perhaps unsurprisingly.
On the other hand, I wonder if we might see a sharp rise from the EU in particular, as those thinking of coming to Britain see that the drawbridge is about to be raised, and they make the leap.
I'd expect a drop in non-EU European migration (i.e. Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian). Anecdotally I know several people who've acquired UK passports and now feel cheated because their promised lifetime access to live anywhere in Europe is now at risk.
In a sense Cameron proved Leave's point for it. Leave contended the British people didn;t have sovereignty, and Dave proved it, by the very act of asking for powers back.
No. Dave disproved Leave's point. ( Not that it mattered. ) The UK elected a parliament with a majority for a referendum. It passed a Referendum Act, we had a referendum and now we'll Leave. At no point did we seek, get or need any permission from the EU for any of that. Unlike California, Catalonia or Scotland if they wished to secede from their Unions. The referendum demonstrated the absolute sovereignty of the UK Parliament re the EU. Ironic and no bloody use in the end but that's what it did.
I'm starting to get interested in the AA polling the US election. Every now and then you get a poll with monster AA numbers for Trump but most of the time it hovers around 5% ish.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
Not sure, I think Trump could do (relatively) well with the AA vote. Hispanics are another matter, mind.
I would far rather an unprincipled pragmatist conduct the Brexit negotiations on our behalf, than a deeply principled naif.
May has spent her political career focusing on herself, as most politicians do. Having reached the top of the greasy poll, though, she now needs to focus on the country. It's understandable that she's currently dazzled in the headlights as she seeks to work out the seemingly unsolvable immigration/prosperity equation, but at some stage she does need to make call. Sustained uncertainty is not pragmatic, it is hugely damaging.
This demand is ridiculous. The British government cannot give away its negotiation strategy six months before the negotiations even begin. Quit your bitchin
I see the words "negotiation strategy", I look at the utter mediocrity of the Cabinet May has assembled (Hammond aside), then I think of the non-existent opposition, and I despair.
Seems the Director of the WTO disagrees with you:
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
I'm sure lots of bright people have been working on scenarios and strategies. Unfortunately, none of them are decision-makers. The ones with actual power are almost uniformly dim.
If you look at the CVs of the Cabinet, they really aren't dim.
Greening went from Rotherham and a comprehensive to an MBA at the London Business School
Javid was a very successful banker
Greg Clark went to Cambridge then took a Phd at the LSE
Hammond did PPE (yes yes) at Oxford then had an impressive business career
Matthew Hancock took an MPhil from Cambridge after his PPE from Oxford
Boris Johnson is one of the most intelligent and erudite politicians of his generation
If you want actual "dim" then Liam Fox and Leadsom might fit the bill if you're feeling deeply uncharitable. But I suggest real dimness should be sought on the Labour benches, starting with leader Jeremy Corbyn who dropped out of North London Poly after one year, and hasn't had an original thought since.
Nah, Labour have some top quality people in their cabinet, Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon both attended the finest university in the world, Cambridge.
Um, never studied there, but I worked at the Uni between 2004-2007.
Comments
As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether she has what it takes - and at the moment, I really have no idea.
Most of the public voters whichever way, saw the vote, accepted it, and got on with their lives. The idea that a Tory voter in Richmond is suddenly going to vote LD because he doesn't like the cut of Zac's BrExit jib seems pretty far fetched to me, especially when they knew he was a Leaver before they elected him in 2015.
No wonder it was off.
https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/791095922709200897
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/opinion/campaign-stops/what-the-rights-intellectuals-did-wrong.html
619 made a total fool of him/herself posting pro-Clinton propaganda. Watch what happens to him/her after this election. Or rather don't, as the poster will mysteriously disappear.
'Asked whether he felt the UK had a comprehensive plan, [the director of the WTO] said: "I think there is a major strategy. "Since the vote there have been a lot of bright people spending 24 hours a day thinking about this and coming up with alternatives and a game plan."'
Absolutely.
It hasn't been a happy experience for most recent examples.
Gordon Brown - You could argue he is responsible for Corbyn, if he hadn't kneecapped any potential rival between 1997-2010. He actively destabilised his PM
John Major - Did well initially, but led the Tories to their greatest shellacking in nearly a century
Jim Callaghan - Very unlucky, had he held a general election in 1978 he might have won, the unions truly shafted him
ADH - I get the feeling he was weighed down by the manner of becoming PM.
You're right on me being harsh on ADH, he played cricket and I loved his actions during the attempted kidnapping of him
Edit - I forgot to add Anthony Eden to the list, but that's self explanatory
Why on earth did he call a referendum? Madness.
Why did he resign? No one thought he had to.
We could still be the EU with David Cameron as our PM if it hadn't been for David Cameron.
Independent in Name Only.
Clearly also, the voters of RP like(d) Zac - they re-elected him last year with a thumping majority. Since then, the mayoral election and Brexit have eroded his popularity somewhat, but a 23,000 majority takes a lot of eroding. The LibDems will have to run a perfect campaign if they're going to win; the contest is so intriguing that I'd advise them to do a good bit of Luntzing before they start.
This is an opportunity for badger-hugging, sandal-wearing, rock sandwich-eating types to strike back.
Edited extra bit: ahem, rocket*. Becoming a bad habit for me to miss of the ends of words.
Edited extra bit two: off*.
More people approve of Theresa May’s performance regarding the ongoing negotiations over Brexit than disapprove (58% total approve figure compared to 25% total disapprove figure)
http://survation.com/uk-still-vote-leave-eu-albeit-narrowly/
That's an order of over 2:1...
No?
It will only get worse with the accession of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia....
The centre of gravity shifted fifteen/twenty years ago.
We have done the right thing, whatever the short term inconvenience for those particularly attached to the single market.
After a majority in 2015, he had no choice. The timing can be quibbled over: would he have done any better (from his view) holding it in (say) 2018? Perhaps, or perhaps events would have worsened.
The tragedy for him is that a referendum in 2012 would have seen us remaining in the EU. In fact, a referendum any time before 2012 would probably have seen us remain. Events have gone poorly for the EU since then.
In fact, I wonder if Clegg and the Lib Dems now regret not agreeing to one in 2011 or 2012, when it might have been winnable and they would have had more power to influence events?
Clinton 46 .. Trump 43
Note - Trump 24% with AA voters .... Oopps
http://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/trump-closing-to-within-three-points-of-clinton-in-florida.php
Since when was Carswell Independent in name?
I can spend ages proof checking my own pieces, and not spot any of my own errors, but I can spot everyone else's errors straight away.
Plus one of them is very time sensitive, and the other I've managed to segue in my all time favourite quote from a Bond film.
I did do a thread on Theresa May's ratings last week, which pointed out she was doing worse than Gordon Brown.
Con: +81
Leave Voter: +55
Remain Voter: +17
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Final-Brexit-Tables-101016JMDLL-1c0d0h2.pdf
Not coming to a thread on PB.com anytime soon....
Firstly, immigration trumps the single market by 56-44 as the key priority for the government in negotiations.
Secondly, more remainers are switching to Leave than vice versa.
Survation fared better than Comres for the actual referendum result.
I'm sure a handful of errors remain (Kingdom Asunder's 100,000 words, all told) but I hope there aren't any howlers.
(I know it's on the list but really..)
1) Missing out 'key' words
2) Homophones
Oh and 3) Writing stuff on my phone and iPad, auto-correct is just amusing so many times.
He promised the referendum.
Why should people, "bastards" or otherwise let him back away from a promise, if he didn't believe it, or want to do it, he should not have promised it. It wasnt the "bastards" that screwed him, it was his own lack of integrity.
Ages ago I wrote "That little western...." and I still have no idea, beyond it being an insult, what 'western' was supposed to be.
The country has tuned out - being asked twice in the space of little over a year is more than enough - they're happy with what they're seeing....
Genuinely clever but also a fucking idiot. It's amazing how often those two things go together!
Then I remember, she's shadowing Amber Rudd
There's an unlively betting market and when Article 50 will be invoked.
And you can bet that if they felt they were going to lose, and lose badly - AV ref badly - the bastards would have been looking for ways out. Fortunately for them it came at the right time.
It'll be the biggest showdown since
JackW vs ....
a) He would be running the leave referendum campaign so it could have been as immigration free, pro-free market as he liked
b) He would have won a thumping mandate of likely 70%+ to take to the EU to drive his negotiations forward
c) He would still be PM and would be able to run the negotiations any way he wanted and we would be in EEA/EFTA and Brexit in name only, very few remainers would have been that unhappy about the result, he would be riding high in the polls and a hero.
As it was his hubris has brought about the exact opposite of what he wanted.
Any idea on the likely B/E date?
If it's kicked into the new year, that favours the LD's
The truth is that at the moment we have a Schroedinger's Strategy: it conceivably exists (or possibly not) - but a superposition can only remain stable for so long.
That would have put him in the Boris league of ner-do-wells
In a sense Cameron proved Leave's point for it. Leave contended the British people didn;t have sovereignty, and Dave proved it, by the very act of asking for powers back.
Does anyone have any methodological insights into this?
ParisEastleigh!"Bought or ..
I've got sympathy for my friends particularly those in science who are screwed by Brexit (Science loss, they'll probably go into something else) but not really for any (Non UK person) who just wants our passport out of convienience.
Every so often they'll throw out a result that will make you laugh/go wow.
As for plans, I think people misunderestimate how long it takes the civil service to gear up.
"Experts", meanwhile, are not being consulted. Perhaps unsurprisingly.