I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
Why do you think that Mrs May is not a centrist remainer?
"Brexit is Brexit and we're going to make it a success." Actually her government is in denial about Brexit. At some point the tyre will hit the road. Hopefully not just days before Article 50 runs out. It doesn't mean there will be a referendum and we will Remain after all. Mrs May will be doing her damnedest to stop people having second thoughts about Brexit. Or indeed any thoughts at all.
Which is the main reason why I think Hard Brexit is more likely than Soft. Soft Brexit depends on accepting reality. If you do that, it raises the question of why we are leaving the EU at all.
'The idea that Richmond Park is somehow representative of a national anti-Brexit reaction is for the birds'.
The view that Richmond Park is entirely unrepresentative needs to be challenged. Indicative of a 'national anti-Brexit reaction', perhaps not, but it does tell us a lot about how angry London is at the moment.
What this result tells me is that an unambiguous pro-EU message from the LDs could help them make big and potentially spectacular gains in the Capital. Let's just take the Lab/ Con marginal Ealing Central & Acton, which is held by Rupa Huq at the moment. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Yvette Cooper, and my view ever since has been that this would be an easy Con gain next time round. Yet if there were to be a vote now, one in which Brexit is the main issue, potentially a LD could take up to half each of the 2015 Con and Lab vote to win.
The LDs' future may well be as a party of ultra-Remain seats in London, Cambridge if they take it back, plus other Remain bastions like Edinburgh and Oxford. Of course the corresponding strategy would put some of their northern seats at risks and kill off any hope of taking back Cornwall or Colchester.
You have not noticed the massive swings to the Lib Dems in Cornwall County Council bye elections this year . Watch for the Lib Dems to take control of the council next May as the Conservatives and UKIP support collapses .
Yes, and Labour won the Ramsgate Parish Council by-election.
If the LDs go into a GE with an explicitly pro-Remain/rejoin message they can forget about taking back strongly Leave areas. Which is not to say it would be a bad strategy - in the ultra-Remain, mainly urban areas, there is a large constituency of people who blame the Tories for Brexit, Labour for not stopping/preventing Brexit, and have forgotten about tuition fees by now.
That would strike me as the optimal strategy. Go hard for the mainstream metropolitan vote. Let UKIP attack Labour in the North.
'the erstwhile Richmond Park MP has contrived to pull off a stunning shitshow accumulator this year'. LOL.
I don't see anything undemocratic in urging a second vote when the terms are clear, but it would need to be coordinated with pretty authoritative signals from the Continent that they would accept an "oh, forget it" decision. Legally they wouldn't have to - Article 50 triggers the process. In reality EU history is full of pragmatic compromise and they probably would if they wanted to - suspend Article 50 discussions forever or whatever, a way would be found if there had been a genuine change of mind in Britain.
That is indeed another stumbling block in any 'stay after all' type moves, the ticking clock to do so before A50 or even more reliance on the EU coming up with a fudged solution that could be lived with, of which neither the proffering by them or acceptance by us looks probable.
'the erstwhile Richmond Park MP has contrived to pull off a stunning shitshow accumulator this year'. LOL.
And there's no sign that May would even consider offering a referendum that gave a bigger choice than "leave with our horrible deal" or "leave without a deal", because most Tory MPs would hate it.
But an election to resolve the issue of whether to have a "Do you want to leave on the terms available or stay after all?" vote might be interesting, and not quite the walkover that the Tories expect.
As you say, interesting but not even being considered. I suspect any pseudo re-run like that would not be a walkover, but once again a tight Leave win - the hardcore is still significant and would turn out in at least as high numbers again in anger, minus a few converts not happy with the proposed deal, but add in a few converts the other way encouraged that the world did not collapse following our vote, a few more who may feel the rubicon has been crossed and staying in with a no doubt bitter and hostile EU at all the trouble we've caused would be a mistake, and it sees Leave over the line again.
'The idea that Richmond Park is somehow representative of a national anti-Brexit reaction is for the birds'.
The view that Richmond Park is entirely unrepresentative needs to be challenged. Indicative of a 'national anti-Brexit reaction', perhaps not, but it does tell us a lot about how angry London is at the moment.
What this result tells me is that an unambiguous pro-EU message from the LDs could help them make big and potentially spectacular gains in the Capital. Let's just take the Lab/ Con marginal Ealing Central & Acton, which is held by Rupa Huq at the moment. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Yvette Cooper, and my view ever since has been that this would be an easy Con gain next time round. Yet if there were to be a vote now, one in which Brexit is the main issue, potentially a LD could take up to half each of the 2015 Con and Lab vote to win.
The LDs' future may well be as a party of ultra-Remain seats in London, Cambridge if they take it back, plus other Remain bastions like Edinburgh and Oxford. Of course the corresponding strategy would put some of their northern seats at risks and kill off any hope of taking back Cornwall or Colchester.
You have not noticed the massive swings to the Lib Dems in Cornwall County Council bye elections this year . Watch for the Lib Dems to take control of the council next May as the Conservatives and UKIP support collapses .
Wouldn't write off Colchester either. The new Tory MP was grumbling after the last Council elections that in spite of all the complaints in his mailbox about the Council, the LD and Lab vote share rose and the Conservative share fell.
There are plenty of Leave voters in Colchester (53.5% in the borough) to be alienated by an arch-Remain angle. Also, Bob Russell had an important incumbency boost and is unlikely to run again at his age.
Mr. Palmer, that's an argument for the Establishment and EU to conspire to get us the worst possible deal in order that we might then baulk at actually leaving.
Who is the Establishment here? May is leading things and will surely go for the best deal she can, if the PM is not the Establishment who is?!
In terms of us getting a good deal, I think seeking to punish us to make the prospect of leaving less appealing to others, stopping contagion, would be more significant in the thoughts of the EU than a convoluted plan to give us a bad deal so we stay after all - it was already an unhappy marriage, if that plan worked it'd be a marriage where one party has a gun pointed at the other to stop them leaving, while bad mouthing them constantly for wanting to leave.
Apologies. I should have said senior (in age) and Liberal.
The BBC was neutral as far as it could be during the campaign but has reverted to type since. Newspapers aren't what they used to be, and the overall tone of the media was favourable for Remain.
If the Scots had voted for independence, I suggest some of the current Remainers would have cried foul.
The Scots had been misled, and don't forget the Scottish racists - who obviously hated the English - had been the deciding factor, and therefore the result could safely be ignored.
The tone of some in the Establishment has been utter shock at the referendum result. A spoilt brat having their favourite toy snatched away. Most unedifying.
We old gits tend to be more sanguine. The subject of Richmond came up in our group yesterday. One of the Remainers is still supportive of Remain but in any re-run, he'd now vote to leave on principle.
'The idea that Richmond Park is somehow representative of a national anti-Brexit reaction is for the birds'.
The view that Richmond Park is entirely unrepresentative needs to be challenged. Indicative of a 'national anti-Brexit reaction', perhaps not, but it does tell us a lot about how angry London is at the moment.
What this result tells me is that an unambiguous pro-EU message from the LDs could help them make big and potentially spectacular gains in the Capital. Let's just take the Lab/ Con marginal Ealing Central & Acton, which is held by Rupa Huq at the moment. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Yvette Cooper, and my view ever since has been that this would be an easy Con gain next time round. Yet if there were to be a vote now, one in which Brexit is the main issue, potentially a LD could take up to half each of the 2015 Con and Lab vote to win.
The LDs' future may well be as a party of ultra-Remain seats in London, Cambridge if they take it back, plus other Remain bastions like Edinburgh and Oxford. Of course the corresponding strategy would put some of their northern seats at risks and kill off any hope of taking back Cornwall or Colchester.
The strong second place in Witney, the win in Richmond and the success of LDs in council byelections suggests that LD support is not restricted to ultra-remainia.
There is plenty of support for sensible pragmatic financially sane politics, and being pro soft-Brexit is not out of line with any party other than UKIP.
Isn't the LD position pro-full membership (probably to include the Euro and Schengen, once we've actually left)? In which case they'd alienate at least 52% of the country but could do very well in places where Remain scored 70%+.
They are in the main still mostly pro Euro
Any evidence for that? I'd be surprised if that was true, and my guess is the party wouldn't stand for Euro & Schengen even if the leadership tried to go down that route.
I cannot recall anyone at any LD meeting that I hav been to in my 5 years of membership advocating joining the Euro, or Shengen fot that matter, but perhaps timmo is more knowledgeable!
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
Apologies. I should have said senior (in age) and Liberal.
The BBC was neutral as far as it could be during the campaign but has reverted to type since. Newspapers aren't what they used to be, and the overall tone of the media was favourable for Remain.
If the Scots had voted for independence, I suggest some of the current Remainers would have cried foul.
The Scots had been misled, and don't forget the Scottish racists - who obviously hated the English - had been the deciding factor, and therefore the result could safely be ignored.
The tone of some in the Establishment has been utter shock at the referendum result. A spoilt brat having their favourite toy snatched away. Most unedifying.
We old gits tend to be more sanguine. The subject of Richmond came up in our group yesterday. One of the Remainers is still supportive of Remain but in any re-run, he'd now vote to leave on principle.
Apology accepted.
I agree that the BBC maintained neutrality; however, if your view of the attitude of the Mail, Sun, Express and to aslightly lesser extent the Telegraph was that they were favourable to Remain...........
Mr. kle4, a majority of the Commons were for Remain. We'll see how things go, but it seems like Hammond, who is clearly in favour of minimal change, has the whip hand in Cabinet, at least compared to the likes of Fox, Davis and Johnson.
A more intelligent Leave advocate was Gove, but he's not there, of course...
'The idea that Richmond Park is somehow representative of a national anti-Brexit reaction is for the birds'.
The view that Richmond Park is entirely unrepresentative needs to be challenged. Indicative of a 'national anti-Brexit reaction', perhaps not, but it does tell us a lot about how angry London is at the moment.
What this result tells me is that an unambiguous pro-EU message from the LDs could help them make big and potentially spectacular gains in the Capital. Let's just take the Lab/ Con marginal Ealing Central & Acton, which is held by Rupa Huq at the moment. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Yvette Cooper, and my view ever since has been that this would be an easy Con gain next time round. Yet if there were to be a vote now, one in which Brexit is the main issue, potentially a LD could take up to half each of the 2015 Con and Lab vote to win.
The LDs' future may well be as a party of ultra-Remain seats in London, Cambridge if they take it back, plus other Remain bastions like Edinburgh and Oxford. Of course the corresponding strategy would put some of their northern seats at risks and kill off any hope of taking back Cornwall or Colchester.
You have not noticed the massive swings to the Lib Dems in Cornwall County Council bye elections this year . Watch for the Lib Dems to take control of the council next May as the Conservatives and UKIP support collapses .
Wouldn't write off Colchester either. The new Tory MP was grumbling after the last Council elections that in spite of all the complaints in his mailbox about the Council, the LD and Lab vote share rose and the Conservative share fell.
There are plenty of Leave voters in Colchester (53.5% in the borough) to be alienated by an arch-Remain angle. Also, Bob Russell had an important incumbency boost and is unlikely to run again at his age.
Agree about Bob Russell; indeed I think he's said he won't stand again.
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
Do you think Hannan's support for Turkish membership made it any more likely? If we have to regard things supported by Daniel Hannan as being likely events I can see where the Leave campaign went wrong.
Mr. kle4, a majority of the Commons were for Remain. We'll see how things go, but it seems like Hammond, who is clearly in favour of minimal change, has the whip hand in Cabinet, at least compared to the likes of Fox, Davis and Johnson.
A more intelligent Leave advocate was Gove, but he's not there, of course...
Gove's primary argument for leaving was based on narcissism. How could he, as an omnipotent member of the cabinet, possibly be constrained by such trifles as European law?
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
One side attracted support from some unsavoury types on the fringes. The other side decided to campaign through xenophobia, Your desperate attempts to create a false equivalence show only that you are keenly aware that this was a victory won through the mire and that the manner of victory is leading to a moral disaster.
In time thoughtful Leavers will come to realise that they made a dreadful error of judgement in acqui swing with such tactics, an error of judgement that sabotaged any sensible strategy. When they finish doubling down on the mistake, they will repent.
Till then, it remains for the rest of us to point out the awful lapse that they have made until they see it.
Fundamentally in the past (at least the recent past), while there was inequality the wealthy were geographically co-located with the less well-off and felt some community loyalty towards them. In addition, most of the unskilled in Western countries had a reasonable standard of living.
Now you have got three trends:
(i) globalisation resulting in a relatively rebalancing of wealth between countries - this has hit most levels of society (even the 1%) but the absolute impact is felt worst by the less skilled who have seen their real incomes stagnate for a decade or more
(ii) the uber-wealthy has become an international class, many of whom feel no residual loyalties to their countries. Clearly this is not the case for many individuals in this country and others, but there are enough people who are too focused on minimising tax and avoiding their obligations to rankle badly
(iii) Companies have taken the concept of shareholder value rather than stakeholder value too far. Tax arbitrage is not a game that a responsible business should engage in. Their objective should be to maximise the value of the enterprise and then pay a decent return to shareholders out of that rather than to maximise the value of the shareholder payment at the expense of the enterprise or of the society from which they grew
In terms of solutions:
(i) globalisation is a given, but you can and should invest in people (and fix education) to give them a chance to compete in the new world. Additionally, restricting immigration (particularly unskilled immigration) is important as this is effectively a wealthy transfer from workers to owners
(ii) No tolerance for tax evaders. Needs to be a multi-lateral solution, which isn't easy, but bringing back shame would be a good start
(iii) Complex and, again, needs to be multi-lateral, but cracking down on some of the more egregious examples would be helpful. I'd also look at doing things like stopping shareholder loans being tax deductible (or at least making sure that they are only tax deductible where they are a real loan rather than just quasi-equity)
Hard to disagree with any of that. (Although the private equity industry won't thank you.)
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
Is there any evidence that Hannan objected to the poster at vote. Leave cabinet?
Or did he opt to keep quiet as it was a means to an end?
'the erstwhile Richmond Park MP has contrived to pull off a stunning shitshow accumulator this year'. LOL.
Kicking people when they're down is nasty but that's a very funny piece.
The NE poll has a voodoo air about it - no indication of how they sampled their readers, or what the demographic is. Nonetheless I think the Government should anticipate a slide in Brexit support as the complications and compromises become manifest, and a "are we sure we want this?" portion of the Leave voters will grow.
The question for Remainers is how to handle that. I don't see anything undemocratic in urging a second vote when the terms are clear, but it would need to be coordinated with pretty authoritative signals from the Continent that they would accept an "oh, forget it" decision. Legally they wouldn't have to - Article 50 triggers the process. In reality EU history is full of pragmatic compromise and they probably would if they wanted to - suspend Article 50 discussions forever or whatever, a way would be found if there had been a genuine change of mind in Britain. And there's no sign that May would even consider offering a referendum that gave a bigger choice than "leave with our horrible deal" or "leave without a deal", because most Tory MPs would hate it.
But an election to resolve the issue of whether to have a "Do you want to leave on the terms available or stay after all?" vote might be interesting, and not quite the walkover that the Tories expect.
That's the first time I've laughed at a Guardian piece in a long time.
But an election to resolve the issue of whether to have a "Do you want to leave on the terms available or stay after all?" vote might be interesting, and not quite the walkover that the Tories expect.
Against Corbyn? It would be the walkover that the Tories expect.
The most pertinent referendum would probably be this:
1) Leave on the terms negotiated, Norway-like I suppose 2) Sod the EU, i.e., WTO terms or 3) Remain on pre-referendum terms
with parties agreeing to allow MPs to campaign for any of these outcomes (as Harold Wilson did in 1975).
As an ardent Remainer, I'd still vote for 1). I think only that would produce a result tantamount to closure, given a 52/48% vote.
Irrespective of the EU, the UK government has a number of desperately serious problems to solve. One is the worst homelessness crisis since 1946 and dubious behaviour by the cartel - er 'loose association' - of companies which now provide most new housing supply and help to set values https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/11/27/uk-housing-crisis-house-prices/.
I don't buy it. Leaving aside the potential new front that has opened up for the Tories, the election card is the Ace in the pack - but can only be played once. There is a significant risk of a difficult scenario unfolding towards the end of the Brexit process, when the government will need approval of the deal, and the likelihood of events having changed things is greater. The election card may be the only way out - either actually having one, to capitalise on Labour's hopelessness, or threatening one, to keep her troops in line (with potential for Tory disaffection at both ends of the debate).
I don't see May playing the card in 2017 unless she gets into such a mess that there is no other way out. Plus Zac has helpfully illustrated that gamblers don't always win (although you'd think Cammo had already made the point), and May is the opposite of an instinctive gambler to begin with. And there's the added bonus of letting Labour stew under Corbyn for as long as possible.
I would say a 2017 election just got less, rather than more, likely.
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
Do you think Hannan's support for Turkish membership made it any more likely? If we have to regard things supported by Daniel Hannan as being likely events I can see where the Leave campaign went wrong.
Was anyone responsible for this or did it produce itself?
The GE would bring MORE Brexit MPs, as on a constituency basis Brexit has massive, massive majorities. (Something like 401 independence, 231 sell out to Brussels)
Ah, the first cuckoo of Spring and it is not even Christmas, how sweet. People voted for Brexit without appreciating the pain that comes with it. As that becomes apparent even 23,000 majorities crumble. I take it your definition of massive, massive is the same as the rest of us would say nano and milli. Brexit it finished, it has passed on, it is no more, it has ceased to be, it's passed its expiry date and gone to meet's makers in the dustbin of time. Sure a few Luddites will espouse its virtues, just as with the Emperor's New Clothes, but the wise have seen through it.
We'll have Brexit-lite now; EEA membership and freedom of movement for 'some'. (I don't remember the Referendum being about our EEA membership, only EU). So we may get a bum deal and be worse off but hey ho that's what those who voted to leave appreciated would happen.
Yet the majority for Remain in Richmond Park got slashed....
I wonder if we will get a hard or soft LibDem in Richmond? Given the Lib Dem only just won with a very small majority that doesn't count of course (following Remain logic). When's By election 2 in Richmond to be held then as the stupid voters had no idea what they were voting for of course or the outcomes?
The hypocrisy remains though as it's a small majority so it should be rerun and legal action in the courts should be taken to ensure the Okney Islands Parish council can determine the positioning of the 3rd runway at Heathrow irrespective of the voters preferred democratic wishes.
Alternatively I suppose none of that applies here because the voters have been deemed to have "voted the correct way".
* Still glad Zac got stuffed by the way ......he deserved it.
The next election in Richmond Park, to give the voters a chance to change their minds, is May 2020. It may be earlier if Parliament (which is sovereign) decides to do otherwise. Hope that helps.
'The idea that Richmond Park is somehow representative of a national anti-Brexit reaction is for the birds'.
The view that Richmond Park is entirely unrepresentative needs to be challenged. Indicative of a 'national anti-Brexit reaction', perhaps not, but it does tell us a lot about how angry London is at the moment.
What this result tells me is that an unambiguous pro-EU message from the LDs could help them make big and potentially spectacular gains in the Capital. Let's just take the Lab/ Con marginal Ealing Central & Acton, which is held by Rupa Huq at the moment. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Yvette Cooper, and my view ever since has been that this would be an easy Con gain next time round. Yet if there were to be a vote now, one in which Brexit is the main issue, potentially a LD could take up to half each of the 2015 Con and Lab vote to win.
The LDs' future may well be as a party of ultra-Remain seats in London, Cambridge if they take it back, plus other Remain bastions like Edinburgh and Oxford. Of course the corresponding strategy would put some of their northern seats at risks and kill off any hope of taking back Cornwall or Colchester.
You're assuming that those who voted Leave will not drift away as they see the consequences.
You're assuming that those who voted Remain will not drift away as they see the lack of consequences. We could go back and forth on this all day.
Nevertheless amid all the argument and hyperbole the one point that does seem reasonably well evidenced, by the Richmond result and the first and second hand anecdotes I have heard, is that s lot of what we might call 'soft' leave voters there are worried about the direction things are going (or not going) in and nervous about the likes of IDS having too much influence in pushing us toward too isolationist a position.
The comparisons with the Remain/leave vote in Richmond are misleading because there was always going to be a big chunk of Richmond remainers who would back Zac from political or personal loyalty. It was the soft and worried leavers wot won it for the LibDems.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
'the erstwhile Richmond Park MP has contrived to pull off a stunning shitshow accumulator this year'. LOL.
Kicking people when they're down is nasty but that's a very funny piece.
The NE poll has a voodoo air about it - no indication of how they sampled their readers, or what the demographic is. Nonetheless I think the Government should anticipate a slide in Brexit support as the complications and compromises become manifest, and a "are we sure we want this?" portion of the Leave voters will grow.
The question for Remainers is how to handle that. I don't see anything undemocratic in urging a second vote when the terms are clear, but it would need to be coordinated with pretty authoritative signals from the Continent that they would accept an "oh, forget it" decision. Legally they wouldn't have to - Article 50 triggers the process. In reality EU history is full of pragmatic compromise and they probably would if they wanted to - suspend Article 50 discussions forever or whatever, a way would be found if there had been a genuine change of mind in Britain. And there's no sign that May would even consider offering a referendum that gave a bigger choice than "leave with our horrible deal" or "leave without a deal", because most Tory MPs would hate it.
But an election to resolve the issue of whether to have a "Do you want to leave on the terms available or stay after all?" vote might be interesting, and not quite the walkover that the Tories expect.
That's the first time I've laughed at a Guardian piece in a long time.
Gove's primary argument for leaving was based on narcissism. How could he, as an omnipotent member of the cabinet, possibly be constrained by such trifles as European law?
I'm not a Gove fan in that he strikes me as quite a dislikeable person. However, I don't really think this is fair.
He was actually a pretty decent Justice Secretary (better than any in recent times) in terms of understanding the role and status of the judiciary and limits of executive power. As Education Secretary I think he was wrong... but one could at least say he had a plan - so many Cabinet ministers simply seem to want to survive as long as possible.
Does that stop him from being a d1ck? No, but he is head and shoulders above the likes of Johnson and Fox in terms of intellect and ability to strategise.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
"The Bank of England declined to say whether there was a legal obligation to accept the notes."
Last time I checked, Bank of England banknotes were legal tender that can not be refused for payment of goods/services.
I presume for consistency that they are searching anyone for leather items. And being concerned about wool, dairy and eggs.
Presumably the Rainbow cafe is not obliged to accept leather items in payment for its products? People have the right to express their beliefs, and like other Britons not required to be consistent.
The tallow fivers are becoming an issue in Leicester, not just with Hindus and Sikhs. There are lots of white vegetarians too.
The statement from the owner was that they don't want animal products in their shop.
Snarky edit: unlike a number of posters here I read articles before commenting....
Hopefully they go out of business , bunch of absolute toss****
Morning malcolm. I take it you haven't had your morning turnip based on that outburst... titters
Rob, reading about these absolute toss**s and their pathetic demands has wound me up right off. Is it any wonder this country is absolutely down the drain , pandering to every half witted crank who thinks they hav ea right to be cretinous and have their pathetic wants catered to. Time to sort out all these whinging halfwitted cranks and tell them to like it or lump it elsewhere.
I've never actually been in the Rainbow, but if they annoy you that much then you perhaps should avoid the city: there are more (ahem) interesting places. Like a cafe where, many years ago, I attended a lesbian poetry competition. That's not a competition for poetry by lesbians, but a competition for poetry about lesbians.
If it gets a bit much, then I can recommend the great, manly Gardenias for a great sloppy burger.
I have no clue where the rainbow is , I was merely commenting on whinging eccentrics who think the world should be shaped for their peccadillos. If they think they can turn away business for such a pathetic reason then they deserve to go bust.
'The idea that Richmond Park is somehow representative of a national anti-Brexit reaction is for the birds'.
The view that Richmond Park is entirely unrepresentative needs to be challenged. Indicative of a 'national anti-Brexit reaction', perhaps not, but it does tell us a lot about how angry London is at the moment.
What this result tells me is that an unambiguous pro-EU message from the LDs could help them make big and potentially spectacular gains in the Capital. Let's just take the Lab/ Con marginal Ealing Central & Acton, which is held by Rupa Huq at the moment. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Yvette Cooper, and my view ever since has been that this would be an easy Con gain next time round. Yet if there were to be a vote now, one in which Brexit is the main issue, potentially a LD could take up to half each of the 2015 Con and Lab vote to win.
The LDs' future may well be as a party of ultra-Remain seats in London, Cambridge if they take it back, plus other Remain bastions like Edinburgh and Oxford. Of course the corresponding strategy would put some of their northern seats at risks and kill off any hope of taking back Cornwall or Colchester.
You're assuming that those who voted Leave will not drift away as they see the consequences.
You're assuming that those who voted Remain will not drift away as they see the lack of consequences. We could go back and forth on this all day.
Nevertheless amid all the argument and hyperbole the one point that does seem reasonably well evidenced, by the Richmond result and the first and second hand anecdotes I have heard, is that s lot of what we might call 'soft' leave voters there are worried about the direction things are going (or not going) in and nervous about the likes of IDS having too much influence in pushing us toward too isolationist a position.
The comparisons with the Remain/leave vote in Richmond are misleading because there was always going to be a big chunk of Richmond remainers who would back Zac from political or personal loyalty. It was the soft and worried leavers wot won it for the LibDems.
Do you know for a fact that soft Leavers voted LD in Richmond? It seems much more plausible that Zac's vote was Leavers plus Tory loyalist Remainers, the LD vote was almost all Remainers, including some who voted for Zac in 2015.
Fundamentally in the past (at least the recent past), while there was inequality the wealthy were geographically co-located with the less well-off and felt some community loyalty towards them. In addition, most of the unskilled in Western countries had a reasonable standard of living.
Now you have got three trends:
(i) globalisation resulting in a relatively rebalancing of wealth between countries - this has hit most levels of society (even the 1%) but the absolute impact is felt worst by the less skilled who have seen their real incomes stagnate for a decade or more
(ii) the uber-wealthy has become an international class, many of whom feel no residual loyalties to their countries. Clearly this is not the case for many individuals in this country and others, but there are enough people who are too focused on minimising tax and avoiding their obligations to rankle badly
(iii) Companies have taken the concept of shareholder value rather than stakeholder value too far. Tax arbitrage is not a game that a responsible business should engage in. Their objective should be to maximise the value of the enterprise and then pay a decent return to shareholders out of that rather than to maximise the value of the shareholder payment at the expense of the enterprise or of the society from which they grew
In terms of solutions:
(i) globalisation is a given, but you can and should invest in people (and fix education) to give them a chance to compete in the new world. Additionally, restricting immigration (particularly unskilled immigration) is important as this is effectively a wealthy transfer from workers to owners
(ii) No tolerance for tax evaders. Needs to be a multi-lateral solution, which isn't easy, but bringing back shame would be a good start
(iii) Complex and, again, needs to be multi-lateral, but cracking down on some of the more egregious examples would be helpful. I'd also look at doing things like stopping shareholder loans being tax deductible (or at least making sure that they are only tax deductible where they are a real loan rather than just quasi-equity)
Hard to disagree with any of that. (Although the private equity industry won't thank you.)
Wait until I change the tax treatment of carried interest
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
Richard (and @another_richard and @Alanbrooke) last night sorry to rush off but had/have a filthy cold and needed zzzs.
Not to reanimate the conversation (about Dave lying/leaving/etc) but I think my view is that he had no option but to deny he would leave following a Leave vote. It is not appropriate for a PM to give the terms whereby he could be ousted (save ofc the GE), as it distorts the issue at hand. Once Leave won, and before for that matter, it was clear he would have to go. That he didn't spell out that course of action, therefore, was IMO realpolitik.
If you accept that (you of course needn't), then it was also appropriate that he didn't trigger A50. But there was nothing to stop Theresa coming in, and in the midst of having to assemble her government, and triggering it there and then because one thing was certain - we were, and are leaving. The argument cannot also therefore be that he would have shaved months of the negotiating process as he is being criticised for not triggering it (and for leaving)!
The legal arguments would of course have applied had Dave triggered it on June 24th also.
Fundamentally in the past (at least the recent past), while there was inequality the wealthy were geographically co-located with the less well-off and felt some community loyalty towards them. In addition, most of the unskilled in Western countries had a reasonable standard of living.
Now you have got three trends:
(i) globalisation resulting in a relatively rebalancing of wealth between countries - this has hit most levels of society (even the 1%) but the absolute impact is felt worst by the less skilled who have seen their real incomes stagnate for a decade or more
(ii) the uber-wealthy has become an international class, many of whom feel no residual loyalties to their countries. Clearly this is not the case for many individuals in this country and others, but there are enough people who are too focused on minimising tax and avoiding their obligations to rankle badly
(iii) Companies have taken the concept of shareholder value rather than stakeholder value too far. Tax arbitrage is not a game that a responsible business should engage in. Their objective should be to maximise the value of the enterprise and then pay a decent return to shareholders out of that rather than to maximise the value of the shareholder payment at the expense of the enterprise or of the society from which they grew
In terms of solutions:
(i) globalisation is a given, but you can and should invest in people (and fix education) to give them a chance to compete in the new world. Additionally, restricting immigration (particularly unskilled immigration) is important as this is effectively a wealthy transfer from workers to owners
(ii) No tolerance for tax evaders. Needs to be a multi-lateral solution, which isn't easy, but bringing back shame would be a good start
(iii) Complex and, again, needs to be multi-lateral, but cracking down on some of the more egregious examples would be helpful. I'd also look at doing things like stopping shareholder loans being tax deductible (or at least making sure that they are only tax deductible where they are a real loan rather than just quasi-equity)
Hard to disagree with any of that. (Although the private equity industry won't thank you.)
Very interesting analysis. I may nick some of the ideas for a Labour List piece (with ack to PB, probably Charles wouldn't thank me for identifying him).
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
One side attracted support from some unsavoury types on the fringes. The other side decided to campaign through xenophobia, Your desperate attempts to create a false equivalence show only that you are keenly aware that this was a victory won through the mire and that the manner of victory is leading to a moral disaster.
In time thoughtful Leavers will come to realise that they made a dreadful error of judgement in acqui swing with such tactics, an error of judgement that sabotaged any sensible strategy. When they finish doubling down on the mistake, they will repent.
Till then, it remains for the rest of us to point out the awful lapse that they have made until they see it.
That's just pearl-clutching. Leave won because they ran a better campaign, and the voters didn't like the EU.
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
One side attracted support from some unsavoury types on the fringes. The other side decided to campaign through xenophobia, Your desperate attempts to create a false equivalence show only that you are keenly aware that this was a victory won through the mire and that the manner of victory is leading to a moral disaster.
In time thoughtful Leavers will come to realise that they made a dreadful error of judgement in acqui swing with such tactics, an error of judgement that sabotaged any sensible strategy. When they finish doubling down on the mistake, they will repent.
Till then, it remains for the rest of us to point out the awful lapse that they have made until they see it.
That's just pearl-clutching. Leave won because they ran a better campaign, and the voters didn't like the EU.
Nonsense. Both campaigns were crap. Leave won because people wanted to give everything a big kick, for reasons that we have been discussing for months, and the PM made the mistake of tying himself to the Remain side.
The Daily Mail has a four page analysis of the 11 Supreme Court Judges with star ratings for their pro EU stances. They are going to do an in depth resume of each Judge's involvement in the EU on Monday.
Many may say that the Mail is attempting to intimidate them but many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
The question is when is it appropriate for the judges to declare an interest and why can they override this essential safeguard required by our MP's
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
One side attracted support from some unsavoury types on the fringes. The other side decided to campaign through xenophobia, Your desperate attempts to create a false equivalence show only that you are keenly aware that this was a victory won through the mire and that the manner of victory is leading to a moral disaster.
In time thoughtful Leavers will come to realise that they made a dreadful error of judgement in acqui swing with such tactics, an error of judgement that sabotaged any sensible strategy. When they finish doubling down on the mistake, they will repent.
Till then, it remains for the rest of us to point out the awful lapse that they have made until they see it.
That's just pearl-clutching. Leave won because they ran a better campaign, and the voters didn't like the EU.
Nonsense. Both campaigns were crap. Leave won because people wanted to give everything a big kick, for reasons that we have been discussing for months, and the PM made the mistake of tying himself to the Remain side.
I'll happily rephrase it by saying Remain ran the worse campaign. The Leave campaign was riddled with errors.
Fundamentally in the past (at least the recent past), while there was inequality the wealthy were geographically co-located with the less well-off and felt some community loyalty towards them. In addition, most of the unskilled in Western countries had a reasonable standard of living.
Now you have got three trends:
(i) globalisation resulting in a relatively rebalancing of wealth between countries - this has hit most levels of society (even the 1%) but the absolute impact is felt worst by the less skilled who have seen their real incomes stagnate for a decade or more
(ii) the uber-wealthy has become an international class, many of whom feel no residual loyalties to their countries. Clearly this is not the case for many individuals in this country and others, but there are enough people who are too focused on minimising tax and avoiding their obligations to rankle badly
(iii) Companies have taken the concept of shareholder value rather than stakeholder value too far. Tax arbitrage is not a game that a responsible business should engage in. Their objective should be to maximise the value of the enterprise and then pay a decent return to shareholders out of that rather than to maximise the value of the shareholder payment at the expense of the enterprise or of the society from which they grew
In terms of solutions:
(i) globalisation is a given, but you can and should invest in people (and fix education) to give them a chance to compete in the new world. Additionally, restricting immigration (particularly unskilled immigration) is important as this is effectively a wealthy transfer from workers to owners
(ii) No tolerance for tax evaders. Needs to be a multi-lateral solution, which isn't easy, but bringing back shame would be a good start
(iii) Complex and, again, needs to be multi-lateral, but cracking down on some of the more egregious examples would be helpful. I'd also look at doing things like stopping shareholder loans being tax deductible (or at least making sure that they are only tax deductible where they are a real loan rather than just quasi-equity)
Hard to disagree with any of that. (Although the private equity industry won't thank you.)
Very interesting analysis. I may nick some of the ideas for a Labour List piece (with ack to PB, probably Charles wouldn't thank me for identifying him).
You can identify me as a "one nation tory" if you want!
I am not a fan of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in general, but it strikes me that its failure to cover the case where a government is blocked not in the Commons but in the Lords is a serious hole and ought to have been foreseeable. It's generally undesirable for a government to be rushing legislation through, but sometimes external circumstances force hands and you can't be waiting around to use the Parliament Act to trump the Lords. FTPA might have been intended as a political manoeuvre - a coalition deal-sealer - but you shouldn't cock around with the long-term constitutional architecture of the country without thinking through the long-term political effects.
Fundamentally in the past (at least the recent past), while there was inequality the wealthy were geographically co-located with the less well-off and felt some community loyalty towards them. In addition, most of the unskilled in Western countries had a reasonable standard of living.
w
In terms of solutions:
(i) globalisation is a given, but you can and should invest in people (and fix education) to give them a chance to compete in the new world. Additionally, restricting immigration (particularly unskilled immigration) is important as this is effectively a wealthy transfer from workers to owners
(ii) No tolerance for tax evaders. Needs to be a multi-lateral solution, which isn't easy, but bringing back shame would be a good start
(iii) Complex and, again, needs to be multi-lateral, but cracking down on some of the more egregious examples would be helpful. I'd also look at doing things like stopping shareholder loans being tax deductible (or at least making sure that they are only tax deductible where they are a real loan rather than just quasi-equity)
Hard to disagree with any of that. (Although the private equity industry won't thank you.)
Very interesting analysis. I may nick some of the ideas for a Labour List piece (with ack to PB, probably Charles wouldn't thank me for identifying him).
Yes some on the money points there.
Taking the wider view. I think there may be something in two further points:
I have seen it argued that, during the Cold War, the existence of communism as an alternative world view and economic model (both for many countries around the world and for voters in western democracies) forced capitalism to make sure it delivered for the majority. Now that communism has gone, that imperative is not there and brakes have been taken off wealth and power being appropriated by those who were already rich and powerful.
I also think there is a general feeling that the political and economic systems are broken, excessively short term, heavily reliant on debt, with the answer to most problems being jam today and a creative way to shunt the cost off into the future. People may not understand the economics of all this (not least because the experts don't either, fuelling general cynicism about experts) but a lot of people can sense that something is wrong, and our politicians are either clueless or not being honest about it. Behind this may well be the awareness, particularly in the US, that China is steadily emerging as the next global superpower, and runs things very differently.
The Daily Mail has a four page analysis of the 11 Supreme Court Judges with star ratings for their pro EU stances. They are going to do an in depth resume of each Judge's involvement in the EU on Monday.
Many may say that the Mail is attempting to intimidate them but many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
The question is when is it appropriate for the judges to declare an interest and why can they override this essential safeguard required by our MP's
I don't think this is right. If we can't trust the judiciary in this country then the whole system turns to shit.
Anyway the government look like they are going to ram through an enabling act. I think if the justices rule that a short bill isn't enough then they need to be told to do one. It isn't the place if the judiciary to tell Parliament how to go about its business.
I am not a fan of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in general, but it strikes me that its failure to cover the case where a government is blocked not in the Commons but in the Lords is a serious hole and ought to have been foreseeable. It's generally undesirable for a government to be rushing legislation through, but sometimes external circumstances force hands and you can't be waiting around to use the Parliament Act to trump the Lords. FTPA might have been intended as a political manoeuvre - a coalition deal-sealer - but you shouldn't cock around with the long-term constitutional architecture of the country without thinking through the long-term political effects.
Tbf it's also down to the dreadful politicization of the Lord's by many incoming peers (especially the last round of Labour peers and the LibDems). They see it as a way to extend the political game rather than a broadly neutral revising house.
I see that the pb bumpkin reaction to the by-election is to decide that the opinions of Londoners don't count.
In a strongly Remain-voting constituency, Zac Goldsmith mislaid a quarter of his vote share despite being, we were told, an MP with a personal following and despite UKIP not standing against him. It seems reasonable to assume that even in more Leave-leaning constituencies there will be a chunk of the 2015 Conservative support that will now no longer turn out for the blue team. Perhaps others can produce a handy ready reckoner for calculating this.
So far Theresa May has seen two by-election defences and (treating Zac Goldsmith as remaining a Tory for these purposes) she has seen average swings against the Conservatives of 20%. This is not the performance of a party 15+% ahead in the polls. Support in the polls for the Comservatives seems highly contingent.
Theresa May should probably have held an autumn general election. 2017 is beginning to look much riskier.
In general election conditions, I can't think of many seats where the Conservatives would be vulnerable, they'd be fewer at any rate, than seats where Labour are vulnerable to them.
They do not need to be vulnerable in many. A dozen would turn them into a minority government. We have not yet seen how effective May is at electioneering, but worth noting that David Cameron was the only leader capable of winning an election since 1992, and that election was also won by a centrist Remainer.
I doubt that Theresa May will prove herself as good a campaigner as Cameron was, and Cameron wasn't great, although he had an excellent team. But then she doesn't need to be as good: a 6/10 candidate still beats a 2/10 candidate hands down.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
Corbyn needs to get out more and even visit some rural Tory seats - for instance the entire area between Birmingham and the Welsh coast. Lots of them are very poor, with much lower incomes than his minions may realise.
Even if he can't stomach anti-immigrant attitudes - I can't either - he could campaign on hundreds of other points including the housing crisis, NHS, overpayment of FTSE-250 CEOs, the insanely complex tax/benefits/pensions system and HMRC's open hostility to (honest) self-employed people and low-income taxpayers vs.its cosiness to large PLCs.
The Daily Mail has a four page analysis of the 11 Supreme Court Judges with star ratings for their pro EU stances. They are going to do an in depth resume of each Judge's involvement in the EU on Monday.
Many may say that the Mail is attempting to intimidate them but many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
The question is when is it appropriate for the judges to declare an interest and why can they override this essential safeguard required by our MP's
I think SeanT referred to this on the previous thread. The Supreme Court probably cannot avoid getting embroiled in political issues so the lack of transparency in appointments to it is a bit worrying.
'The idea that Richmond Park is somehow representative of a national anti-Brexit reaction is for the birds'.
What this result tells me is that an unambiguous pro-EU message from the LDs could help them make big and potentially spectacular gains in the Capital. Let's just take the Lab/ Con marginal Ealing Central & Acton, which is held by Rupa Huq at the moment. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Yvette Cooper, and my view ever since has been that this would be an easy Con gain next time round. Yet if there were to be a vote now, one in which Brexit is the main issue, potentially a LD could take up to half each of the 2015 Con and Lab vote to win.
The LDs' future may well be as a party of ultra-Remain seats in London, Cambridge if they take it back, plus other Remain bastions like Edinburgh and Oxford. Of course the corresponding strategy would put some of their northern seats at risks and kill off any hope of taking back Cornwall or Colchester.
You're assuming that those who voted Leave will not drift away as they see the consequences.
You're assuming that those who voted Remain will not drift away as they see the lack of consequences. We could go back and forth on this all day.
Nevertheless amid all the argument and hyperbole the one point that does seem reasonably well evidenced, by the Richmond result and the first and second hand anecdotes I have heard, is that s lot of what we might call 'soft' leave voters there are worried about the direction things are going (or not going) in and nervous about the likes of IDS having too much influence in pushing us toward too isolationist a position.
The comparisons with the Remain/leave vote in Richmond are misleading because there was always going to be a big chunk of Richmond remainers who would back Zac from political or personal loyalty. It was the soft and worried leavers wot won it for the LibDems.
Do you know for a fact that soft Leavers voted LD in Richmond? It seems much more plausible that Zac's vote was Leavers plus Tory loyalist Remainers, the LD vote was almost all Remainers, including some who voted for Zac in 2015.
Absolutely, evidenced by dozens of local conversations with Richmond voters.
Just yesterday I was on the phone to a leading local Tory politician in my patch, and he said he (and by implication other he knew) felt the government was making a hash of things and needed a more robust line, particularly with the hard nuts in their own party.
We forget that the more moderate Tories have lived with this for years, and don't need lessons from any of us about the difficulty they will have in dealing with these people.
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Judges appointed with a two thirds majority in the Commons? Life time tenures. Essentially copying the SCOTUS but with a two thirds majority to reflect that the executive and legislature are one and the same here.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
The skills required to win a leadership election and to win a General Election are totally different.
In a leadership election, you're preaching to the choir - telling people who are pretty much on the same page as you what they want to hear. For a General Election, you're telling the non-committal, apolitical and wavering supporters of your opponent from across a wide spectrum of views that you are more competent than the current rabble.
Nobody doubts Corbyn's ability to fill a hall with old (and young) Trots and a certain breed of trades unionist, all of whom are already fully on board. Like an old rocker, deep in his comfort zone, trotting out the tried and tested hits to late middle aged fans to raise money for his new swimming pool. But he has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to reach out and settle the nerves of the centre-ground where these things are won... and he never will.
@Charles very interesting post from earlier, I may reference it in a paper I'm writing at work!
If a global multilateral approach isn't achievable yet, perhaps something with our European neighbours would be a good starting point. If only there were some kind of political framework through which we could work...
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Plenty of other countries elect judges. And even in juridictions they don't surely it is good to have transparency precisely to ensure decisons are seen as impartial. I find it more scary the idea that anybody deciding law is somehow beyond reproach, we don't take that attitude with lawmakers themselves.
@Charles very interesting post from earlier, I may reference it in a paper I'm writing at work!
If a global multilateral approach isn't achievable yet, perhaps something with our European neighbours would be a good starting point. If only there were some kind of political framework through which we could work...
No, it only works if it is voluntary and with QMV it no longer was
Anyway the government look like they are going to ram through an enabling act. I think if the justices rule that a short bill isn't enough then they need to be told to do one. It isn't the place if the judiciary to tell Parliament how to go about its business.
That's what constitutional law is! Of course, the courts can't give detail on what the law must contain, but could very well say "it must give certainty as to whether and to what extent the 1972 Act would apply, and decisions made pursuant to that Act would apply, on expiry of the Article 50 notice". And that would, in fact, necessitate something more complex than a brief Enabling Act.
Mr. Alan, you can buy whichever papers you please, or buy none.
You can't opt out of the law.
Nevertheless both our system of press and of law ultimately rest on consent, both have potentially significant influence, and neither is actually elected (or directly accountable, in the short term, pace levison)
Mr. Glenn, multi-lateral approaches don't need to (and shouldn't naturally) assume the grasping tentacular monstrosity of the EU.
NATO's worked perfectly well for decades, yet it's somehow managed to resist buggering up VAT on electronic goods and services, or telling us we should give votes to prisoners.
Anyway the government look like they are going to ram through an enabling act. I think if the justices rule that a short bill isn't enough then they need to be told to do one. It isn't the place if the judiciary to tell Parliament how to go about its business.
That's what constitutional law is! Of course, the courts can't give detail on what the law must contain, but could very well say "it must give certainty as to whether and to what extent the 1972 Act would apply, and decisions made pursuant to that Act would apply, on expiry of the Article 50 notice". And that would, in fact, necessitate something more complex than a brief Enabling Act.
That's just one more clause "they all apply until Parliament decides otherwise"
Mr. B2, people make choices when it comes to the media (excepting the BBC) and it is financially accountable. People cannot make that choice with justice.
That's just one more clause "they all apply until Parliament decides otherwise"
Doesn't work because aspects of the 1972 Act are based on the European court system, which would (in fact) no longer have jurisdiction to hear UK cases. So there would be de facto repeal without Parliamentary approval.
Richard (and @another_richard and @Alanbrooke) last night sorry to rush off but had/have a filthy cold and needed zzzs.
Not to reanimate the conversation (about Dave lying/leaving/etc) but I think my view is that he had no option but to deny he would leave following a Leave vote. It is not appropriate for a PM to give the terms whereby he could be ousted (save ofc the GE), as it distorts the issue at hand. Once Leave won, and before for that matter, it was clear he would have to go. That he didn't spell out that course of action, therefore, was IMO realpolitik.
If you accept that (you of course needn't), then it was also appropriate that he didn't trigger A50. But there was nothing to stop Theresa coming in, and in the midst of having to assemble her government, and triggering it there and then because one thing was certain - we were, and are leaving. The argument cannot also therefore be that he would have shaved months of the negotiating process as he is being criticised for not triggering it (and for leaving)!
The legal arguments would of course have applied had Dave triggered it on June 24th also.
I suppose I just wish once in a while we could get an honest politician. Mr Cameron didn't just deny that he would quit he made numerous statements affirming his absolute commitment to staying in office no matter what the referendum result. Having done that he should have stuck to it at least until after the process was set in motion.
Mr. B2, people make choices when it comes to the media (excepting the BBC) and it is financially accountable. People cannot make that choice with justice.
Personally I would rather the judges than the likes of Murdoch had influence, but there we are.
@Charles very interesting post from earlier, I may reference it in a paper I'm writing at work!
If a global multilateral approach isn't achievable yet, perhaps something with our European neighbours would be a good starting point. If only there were some kind of political framework through which we could work...
No, it only works if it is voluntary and with QMV it no longer was
Is it not possible to voluntarily consent to operating under QMV, as we in fact did?
Unanimity is a good thing but some seem quite happy for the bar to be as low as 52% in order to tear up our constitution.
Richard (and @another_richard and @Alanbrooke) last night sorry to rush off but had/have a filthy cold and needed zzzs.
Not to reanimate the conversation (about Dave lying/leaving/etc) but I think my view is that he had no option but to deny he would leave following a Leave vote. It is not appropriate for a PM to give the terms whereby he could be ousted (save ofc the GE), as it distorts the issue at hand. Once Leave won, and before for that matter, it was clear he would have to go. That he didn't spell out that course of action, therefore, was IMO realpolitik.
If you accept that (you of course needn't), then it was also appropriate that he didn't trigger A50. But there was nothing to stop Theresa coming in, and in the midst of having to assemble her government, and triggering it there and then because one thing was certain - we were, and are leaving. The argument cannot also therefore be that he would have shaved months of the negotiating process as he is being criticised for not triggering it (and for leaving)!
The legal arguments would of course have applied had Dave triggered it on June 24th also.
I suppose I just wish once in a while we could get an honest politician. Mr Cameron didn't just deny that he would quit he made numerous statements affirming his absolute commitment to staying in office no matter what the referendum result. Having done that he should have stuck to it at least until after the process was set in motion.
We all knew he would go and that he'd have to deny it beforehand, didn't we. It was obvious to me and I said so. As a politician he knew what would happen if he said/did otherwise.
And another thing, I don't think that elected L/Dem MP Olney will prove much use to the L/Dms if she cant stand the heat of a few attacking questions on radio, as happened yesterday when she was dragged off air by her handler.
@Charles very interesting post from earlier, I may reference it in a paper I'm writing at work!
If a global multilateral approach isn't achievable yet, perhaps something with our European neighbours would be a good starting point. If only there were some kind of political framework through which we could work...
No, it only works if it is voluntary and with QMV it no longer was
Is it not possible to voluntarily consent to operating under QMV, as we in fact did?
Unanimity is a good thing but some seem quite happy for the bar to be as low as 52% in order to tear up our constitution.
There is no written constitution for the Uk so hard to tear it up.
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Judges appointed with a two thirds majority in the Commons? Life time tenures. Essentially copying the SCOTUS but with a two thirds majority to reflect that the executive and legislature are one and the same here.
I think our system is fine as it is. It is not especially broken, save if they happen to do something you don't agree with, it seems.
Anyway the government look like they are going to ram through an enabling act. I think if the justices rule that a short bill isn't enough then they need to be told to do one. It isn't the place if the judiciary to tell Parliament how to go about its business.
That's what constitutional law is! Of course, the courts can't give detail on what the law must contain, but could very well say "it must give certainty as to whether and to what extent the 1972 Act would apply, and decisions made pursuant to that Act would apply, on expiry of the Article 50 notice". And that would, in fact, necessitate something more complex than a brief Enabling Act.
There's an interesting piece in the Spectator about the differing judicial philosophies of the eleven judges who will be trying the case. A few (though not a majority) seem to take the view that they can strike down primary legislation that conflicts with broad human rights principles. I wonder if we'll get at a dissenting minority ruling that any attempt to revoke EU membership is unlawful, because it breaches Article 8 of the ECHR.
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Plenty of other countries elect judges. And even in juridictions they don't surely it is good to have transparency precisely to ensure decisons are seen as impartial. I find it more scary the idea that anybody deciding law is somehow beyond reproach, we don't take that attitude with lawmakers themselves.
Hmm. I'm quite happy with our judicial system. You might want to copy Tonga or the US but I think ours works fine as it is. Couldn't be happier with it, in fact. I'm sure I'm not alone.
That's just one more clause "they all apply until Parliament decides otherwise"
Doesn't work because aspects of the 1972 Act are based on the European court system, which would (in fact) no longer have jurisdiction to hear UK cases. So there would be de facto repeal without Parliamentary approval.
Then you assign the responsibility to another court.
Richard (and @another_richard and @Alanbrooke) last night sorry to rush off but had/have a filthy cold and needed zzzs.
Not to reanimate the conversation (about Dave lying/leaving/etc) but I think my view is that he had no option but to deny he would leave following a Leave vote. It is not appropriate for a PM to give the terms whereby he could be ousted (save ofc the GE), as it distorts the issue at hand. Once Leave won, and before for that matter, it was clear he would have to go. That he didn't spell out that course of action, therefore, was IMO realpolitik.
If you accept that (you of course needn't), then it was also appropriate that he didn't trigger A50. But there was nothing to stop Theresa coming in, and in the midst of having to assemble her government, and triggering it there and then because one thing was certain - we were, and are leaving. The argument cannot also therefore be that he would have shaved months of the negotiating process as he is being criticised for not triggering it (and for leaving)!
The legal arguments would of course have applied had Dave triggered it on June 24th also.
I suppose I just wish once in a while we could get an honest politician. Mr Cameron didn't just deny that he would quit he made numerous statements affirming his absolute commitment to staying in office no matter what the referendum result. Having done that he should have stuck to it at least until after the process was set in motion.
As I mentioned last night, I think it was best for the country what actually happened (the timing/A50, not Brexit!!).
I think not being in a hurry to trigger is fine, it gives us time to get our ducks in a row - of course who knew there would be three idiots given charge of it, but that's another issue.
If Dave had triggered, and stayed, then there would have been inevitably a leadership election, and chaos and we would be six months in to the two-year window.
@Charles very interesting post from earlier, I may reference it in a paper I'm writing at work!
If a global multilateral approach isn't achievable yet, perhaps something with our European neighbours would be a good starting point. If only there were some kind of political framework through which we could work...
No, it only works if it is voluntary and with QMV it no longer was
Is it not possible to voluntarily consent to operating under QMV, as we in fact did?
Unanimity is a good thing but some seem quite happy for the bar to be as low as 52% in order to tear up our constitution.
Yes the government of the day did so without consulting the people. When the people were consulted they decided the government had overstepped the bounds of its authority
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Plenty of other countries elect judges. And even in juridictions they don't surely it is good to have transparency precisely to ensure decisons are seen as impartial. I find it more scary the idea that anybody deciding law is somehow beyond reproach, we don't take that attitude with lawmakers themselves.
Hmm. I'm quite happy with our judicial system. You might want to copy Tonga or the US but I think ours works fine as it is. Couldn't be happier with it, in fact. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Exactly - our judiciary and system is about as independent as they get; something we are respected for around the world, seen as the best-in-class model. And key to a functioning democracy (Russia's failed democracy and slide back to criminal oligarchy is because judges can simply be bribed or shot)
Whereas our model of media ownership and (popular print) journalistic standards...not so much.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
The skills required to win a leadership election and to win a General Election are totally different.
In a leadership election, you're preaching to the choir - telling people who are pretty much on the same page as you what they want to hear. For a General Election, you're telling the non-committal, apolitical and wavering supporters of your opponent from across a wide spectrum of views that you are more competent than the current rabble.
Nobody doubts Corbyn's ability to fill a hall with old (and young) Trots and a certain breed of trades unionist, all of whom are already fully on board. Like an old rocker, deep in his comfort zone, trotting out the tried and tested hits to late middle aged fans to raise money for his new swimming pool. But he has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to reach out and settle the nerves of the centre-ground where these things are won... and he never will.
Corbyn has spent his life addressing halls and fields full of like minded people. He is good at public speaking. What he isn't good at is dealing with difficult questions in an interview, thinking on his feet, exuding an air of authority and charisma or looking like a PM in waiting. For those who sat in Shadow Cabinet with Corbyn from day one it soon became clear that he did not possess the leadership qualities they would have expected and needed to see in the party leader.
Clearly many in the PLP and in the wider party want rid of Corbyn because they want a less radically left manifesto. However for others, such as me, it isn't primarily policy it is personality. Let's keep our policies on the economy, education, health and renationalisation of key public utilities and services, but we need someone fronting them who can connect with the voters and in whom they can place their trust to run the country.
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Plenty of other countries elect judges. And even in juridictions they don't surely it is good to have transparency precisely to ensure decisons are seen as impartial. I find it more scary the idea that anybody deciding law is somehow beyond reproach, we don't take that attitude with lawmakers themselves.
Hmm. I'm quite happy with our judicial system. You might want to copy Tonga or the US but I think ours works fine as it is. Couldn't be happier with it, in fact. I'm sure I'm not alone.
haha of course (just googled), Tonga follows the English common law system...
@Charles very interesting post from earlier, I may reference it in a paper I'm writing at work!
If a global multilateral approach isn't achievable yet, perhaps something with our European neighbours would be a good starting point. If only there were some kind of political framework through which we could work...
No, it only works if it is voluntary and with QMV it no longer was
Is it not possible to voluntarily consent to operating under QMV, as we in fact did?
Unanimity is a good thing but some seem quite happy for the bar to be as low as 52% in order to tear up our constitution.
Yes the government of the day did so without consulting the people. When the people were consulted they decided the government had overstepped the bounds of its authority
Well they decided they liked the idea of £350m a week for the NHS and definitely not 80m Turks coming here. I don't remember QMV being much of a hot topic for the Leave campaign. Perhaps they didn't trust the people to understand the real issues?
Richard (and @another_richard and @Alanbrooke) last night sorry to rush off but had/have a filthy cold and needed zzzs.
Not to reanimate the conversation (about Dave lying/leaving/etc) but I think my view is that he had no option but to deny he would leave following a Leave vote. It is not appropriate for a PM to give the terms whereby he could be ousted (save ofc the GE), as it distorts the issue at hand. Once Leave won, and before for that matter, it was clear he would have to go. That he didn't spell out that course of action, therefore, was IMO realpolitik.
If you accept that (you of course needn't), then it was also appropriate that he didn't trigger A50. But there was nothing to stop Theresa coming in, and in the midst of having to assemble her government, and triggering it there and then because one thing was certain - we were, and are leaving. The argument cannot also therefore be that he would have shaved months of the negotiating process as he is being criticised for not triggering it (and for leaving)!
The legal arguments would of course have applied had Dave triggered it on June 24th also.
I suppose I just wish once in a while we could get an honest politician. Mr Cameron didn't just deny that he would quit he made numerous statements affirming his absolute commitment to staying in office no matter what the referendum result. Having done that he should have stuck to it at least until after the process was set in motion.
As I mentioned last night, I think it was best for the country what actually happened (the timing/A50, not Brexit!!).
I think not being in a hurry to trigger is fine, it gives us time to get our ducks in a row - of course who knew there would be three idiots given charge of it, but that's another issue.
If Dave had triggered, and stayed, then there would have been inevitably a leadership election, and chaos and we would be six months in to the two-year window.
Dave couldn't stay after the Brexit vote, he had lost all authority. He couldn't trigger A50, he had to leave that decision to his successor. Just imagine if Leadsome had been chosen.
Corbyn (and his team) campaigned pretty effectively and ruthlessly in the Labour leadership election. He might not be the pushover most Tories assume, if he gets the right message.
The skills required to win a leadership election and to win a General Election are totally different.
In a leadership election, you're preaching to the choir - telling people who are pretty much on the same page as you what they want to hear. For a General Election, you're telling the non-committal, apolitical and wavering supporters of your opponent from across a wide spectrum of views that you are more competent than the current rabble.
Nobody doubts Corbyn's ability to fill a hall with old (and young) Trots and a certain breed of trades unionist, all of whom are already fully on board. Like an old rocker, deep in his comfort zone, trotting out the tried and tested hits to late middle aged fans to raise money for his new swimming pool. But he has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to reach out and settle the nerves of the centre-ground where these things are won... and he never will.
Corbyn has spent his life addressing halls and fields full of like minded people. He is good at public speaking. What he isn't good at is dealing with difficult questions in an interview, thinking on his feet, exuding an air of authority and charisma or looking like a PM in waiting. For those who sat in Shadow Cabinet with Corbyn from day one it soon became clear that he did not possess the leadership qualities they would have expected and needed to see in the party leader.
Clearly many in the PLP and in the wider party want rid of Corbyn because they want a less radically left manifesto. However for others, such as me, it isn't primarily policy it is personality. Let's keep our policies on the economy, education, health and renationalisation of key public utilities and services, but we need someone fronting them who can connect with the voters and in whom they can place their trust to run the country.
Corbyn needs to learn from Sanders (who also flirted with a lot of foreign affairs stuff in the past) and spend the next four years talking about the economy, the economy, and the economy. No speeches on defence or liberation struggles around the world, no nothing other than relentless focus on selling a fairer economic settlement. Then he might stand some chance.
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Plenty of other countries elect judges. And even in juridictions they don't surely it is good to have transparency precisely to ensure decisons are seen as impartial. I find it more scary the idea that anybody deciding law is somehow beyond reproach, we don't take that attitude with lawmakers themselves.
Hmm. I'm quite happy with our judicial system. You might want to copy Tonga or the US but I think ours works fine as it is. Couldn't be happier with it, in fact. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Exactly - our judiciary and system is about as independent as they get; something we are respected for around the world, seen as the best-in-class model. And key to a functioning democracy (Russia's failed democracy and slide back to criminal oligarchy is because judges can simply be bribed or shot)
Whereas our model of media ownership and (popular print) journalistic standards...not so much.
We need a list of issues, similar to Labour's bankers' bonus tax, which Brexiters believe Brexit will solve:
1) Educational achievement of those less well off 2) Better vocational training 3) higher wages for the unskilled 4) increased productivity 5) An end to unelected judges 6) rebasing house prices to the "right" level 7) Zero-rating of VAT on home energy supplies ...
And another thing, I don't think that elected L/Dem MP Olney will prove much use to the L/Dms if she cant stand the heat of a few attacking questions on radio, as happened yesterday when she was dragged off air by her handler.
She is new, and had at that point been up for over thirty hours without sleep. JHB isn't that bright herself and the whole episode could have been closed down by telling her that the re-run of the by-election would be in 2020. That she didn't think of it in the circumstances hardly writes her off.
@Charles very interesting post from earlier, I may reference it in a paper I'm writing at work!
If a global multilateral approach isn't achievable yet, perhaps something with our European neighbours would be a good starting point. If only there were some kind of political framework through which we could work...
No, it only works if it is voluntary and with QMV it no longer was
Is it not possible to voluntarily consent to operating under QMV, as we in fact did?
Unanimity is a good thing but some seem quite happy for the bar to be as low as 52% in order to tear up our constitution.
Yes the government of the day did so without consulting the people. When the people were consulted they decided the government had overstepped the bounds of its authority
Well they decided they liked the idea of £350m a week for the NHS and definitely not 80m Turks coming here. I don't remember QMV being much of a hot topic for the Leave campaign. Perhaps they didn't trust the people to understand the real issues?
Mr. Topping, assigning multiple things that will be magically resolved to the departure, in the minds of all Leave voters.
Both campaigns were broad coalitions of people with varying perspectives. Migration was never a major issue for me. I was concerned by the near certain short term hit to the economy (I wavered more than expected in the polling booth). Sovereignty and the direction of travel of the EU were the critical factors.
I didn't see a big red bus, read a slogan and decide how to vote based on that, and I don't think leaving the EU will wave a magic wand that will make everything better.
many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
Pretty scary sentiment, there, Big G.
Why? I don't see people who critisise the unelected house of Lords on the same grounds being described as "scary".
If "unelected judges" are scary, what is your favoured alternative?
Judges appointed with a two thirds majority in the Commons? Life time tenures. Essentially copying the SCOTUS but with a two thirds majority to reflect that the executive and legislature are one and the same here.
I think our system is fine as it is. It is not especially broken, save if they happen to do something you don't agree with, it seems.
I am as well, I was just suggesting an alternative which would force governments to choose a consensus option rather than an activist option.
Except he didn't ally himself with anyone of the sort, and nor did Roland Smith or myself. He was always open to an EEA based interim solution - exactly as Roland and myself were.
We were entirely clear, as was Flexcit/Leave Alliance - Hannan and the Adam Smith 'Liberal Case for Leave'.
Yep. He has remained utterly consistent throughout and continues to push for what he believes is best for the country. It is rich to see those who allied themselves with the political wing of the IRA trying to smear their opponents.
Daniel Hannan was on the campaign committee of Vote Leave whose main poster read "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU".
That confection of mendacity and pandering to xenophobia won it for Leave. Daniel Hannan cannot evade this stain on his character but he could at least repent it publicly.
Hannan has written in support of Turkey joining the EU and is pro immigration. As I say your ludicrous attempts to smear him rather fall down when your side was lining up alongside terrorists.
One side attracted support from some unsavoury types on the fringes. The other side decided to campaign through xenophobia, Your desperate attempts to create a false equivalence show only that you are keenly aware that this was a victory won through the mire and that the manner of victory is leading to a moral disaster.
In time thoughtful Leavers will come to realise that they made a dreadful error of judgement in acqui swing with such tactics, an error of judgement that sabotaged any sensible strategy. When they finish doubling down on the mistake, they will repent.
Till then, it remains for the rest of us to point out the awful lapse that they have made until they see it.
You really are deluded I am afraid. There was no lapse and we are very happy with where we are now and where any of the possible Brexit roads might lead. Some we prefer to others but every one of them is a million times better than being shackled to your backward, protectionist and failing EU. I have nothing but scorn for the whining losers like yourself who are too dumb to realise how and why they lost.
Comments
(Caveat: I am a Tory voter)
In terms of us getting a good deal, I think seeking to punish us to make the prospect of leaving less appealing to others, stopping contagion, would be more significant in the thoughts of the EU than a convoluted plan to give us a bad deal so we stay after all - it was already an unhappy marriage, if that plan worked it'd be a marriage where one party has a gun pointed at the other to stop them leaving, while bad mouthing them constantly for wanting to leave.
Apologies. I should have said senior (in age) and Liberal.
The BBC was neutral as far as it could be during the campaign but has reverted to type since. Newspapers aren't what they used to be, and the overall tone of the media was favourable for Remain.
If the Scots had voted for independence, I suggest some of the current Remainers would have cried foul.
The Scots had been misled, and don't forget the Scottish racists - who obviously hated the English - had been the deciding factor, and therefore the result could safely be ignored.
The tone of some in the Establishment has been utter shock at the referendum result. A spoilt brat having their favourite toy snatched away. Most unedifying.
We old gits tend to be more sanguine. The subject of Richmond came up in our group yesterday. One of the Remainers is still supportive of Remain but in any re-run, he'd now vote to leave on principle.
I agree that the BBC maintained neutrality; however, if your view of the attitude of the Mail, Sun, Express and to aslightly lesser extent the Telegraph was that they were favourable to Remain...........
A more intelligent Leave advocate was Gove, but he's not there, of course...
In time thoughtful Leavers will come to realise that they made a dreadful error of judgement in acqui swing with such tactics, an error of judgement that sabotaged any sensible strategy. When they finish doubling down on the mistake, they will repent.
Till then, it remains for the rest of us to point out the awful lapse that they have made until they see it.
Or did he opt to keep quiet as it was a means to an end?
1) Leave on the terms negotiated, Norway-like I suppose
2) Sod the EU, i.e., WTO terms
or
3) Remain on pre-referendum terms
with parties agreeing to allow MPs to campaign for any of these outcomes (as Harold Wilson did in 1975).
As an ardent Remainer, I'd still vote for 1). I think only that would produce a result tantamount to closure, given a 52/48% vote.
Irrespective of the EU, the UK government has a number of desperately serious problems to solve. One is the worst homelessness crisis since 1946 and dubious behaviour by the cartel - er 'loose association' - of companies which now provide most new housing supply and help to set values
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/11/27/uk-housing-crisis-house-prices/.
"Till then, it remains for the rest of us to point out the awful lapse that they have made until they see it."
Yup, that should convince them.
Are you a secret Leaver by any chance?
I don't see May playing the card in 2017 unless she gets into such a mess that there is no other way out. Plus Zac has helpfully illustrated that gamblers don't always win (although you'd think Cammo had already made the point), and May is the opposite of an instinctive gambler to begin with. And there's the added bonus of letting Labour stew under Corbyn for as long as possible.
I would say a 2017 election just got less, rather than more, likely.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07d6f8y/eu-referendum-campaign-broadcasts-vote-leave-23052016
It may be earlier if Parliament (which is sovereign) decides to do otherwise.
Hope that helps.
The comparisons with the Remain/leave vote in Richmond are misleading because there was always going to be a big chunk of Richmond remainers who would back Zac from political or personal loyalty. It was the soft and worried leavers wot won it for the LibDems.
He was actually a pretty decent Justice Secretary (better than any in recent times) in terms of understanding the role and status of the judiciary and limits of executive power. As Education Secretary I think he was wrong... but one could at least say he had a plan - so many Cabinet ministers simply seem to want to survive as long as possible.
Does that stop him from being a d1ck? No, but he is head and shoulders above the likes of Johnson and Fox in terms of intellect and ability to strategise.
Not to reanimate the conversation (about Dave lying/leaving/etc) but I think my view is that he had no option but to deny he would leave following a Leave vote. It is not appropriate for a PM to give the terms whereby he could be ousted (save ofc the GE), as it distorts the issue at hand. Once Leave won, and before for that matter, it was clear he would have to go. That he didn't spell out that course of action, therefore, was IMO realpolitik.
If you accept that (you of course needn't), then it was also appropriate that he didn't trigger A50. But there was nothing to stop Theresa coming in, and in the midst of having to assemble her government, and triggering it there and then because one thing was certain - we were, and are leaving. The argument cannot also therefore be that he would have shaved months of the negotiating process as he is being criticised for not triggering it (and for leaving)!
The legal arguments would of course have applied had Dave triggered it on June 24th also.
Many may say that the Mail is attempting to intimidate them but many more will feel it is justified when they are unelected , and yet have so much power over our lives
The question is when is it appropriate for the judges to declare an interest and why can they override this essential safeguard required by our MP's
Taking the wider view. I think there may be something in two further points:
I have seen it argued that, during the Cold War, the existence of communism as an alternative world view and economic model (both for many countries around the world and for voters in western democracies) forced capitalism to make sure it delivered for the majority. Now that communism has gone, that imperative is not there and brakes have been taken off wealth and power being appropriated by those who were already rich and powerful.
I also think there is a general feeling that the political and economic systems are broken, excessively short term, heavily reliant on debt, with the answer to most problems being jam today and a creative way to shunt the cost off into the future. People may not understand the economics of all this (not least because the experts don't either, fuelling general cynicism about experts) but a lot of people can sense that something is wrong, and our politicians are either clueless or not being honest about it. Behind this may well be the awareness, particularly in the US, that China is steadily emerging as the next global superpower, and runs things very differently.
Anyway the government look like they are going to ram through an enabling act. I think if the justices rule that a short bill isn't enough then they need to be told to do one. It isn't the place if the judiciary to tell Parliament how to go about its business.
Mr. Ears, I agree entirely. It should've had a sunset clause as well, so that it needed renewing or would naturally lapse after the 2015 election.
Mr. NorthWales, I'd say that suggest the Mail is preparing the ground for a probable defeat (from their perspective) in the courts.
Even if he can't stomach anti-immigrant attitudes - I can't either - he could campaign on hundreds of other points including the housing crisis, NHS, overpayment of FTSE-250 CEOs, the insanely complex tax/benefits/pensions system and HMRC's open hostility to (honest) self-employed people and low-income taxpayers vs.its cosiness to large PLCs.
The Supreme Court probably cannot avoid getting embroiled in political issues so the lack of transparency in appointments to it is a bit worrying.
Sure the Mail may go over the top depending on your view, but surely people have a right to know who the people are.
I hadn't heard that at the time.
I think Goldsmith can be promoted from vapid bag of emptiness in the control of shits to full on shit status.
Just yesterday I was on the phone to a leading local Tory politician in my patch, and he said he (and by implication other he knew) felt the government was making a hash of things and needed a more robust line, particularly with the hard nuts in their own party.
We forget that the more moderate Tories have lived with this for years, and don't need lessons from any of us about the difficulty they will have in dealing with these people.
In a leadership election, you're preaching to the choir - telling people who are pretty much on the same page as you what they want to hear. For a General Election, you're telling the non-committal, apolitical and wavering supporters of your opponent from across a wide spectrum of views that you are more competent than the current rabble.
Nobody doubts Corbyn's ability to fill a hall with old (and young) Trots and a certain breed of trades unionist, all of whom are already fully on board. Like an old rocker, deep in his comfort zone, trotting out the tried and tested hits to late middle aged fans to raise money for his new swimming pool. But he has demonstrated absolutely zero ability to reach out and settle the nerves of the centre-ground where these things are won... and he never will.
You can't opt out of the law.
NATO's worked perfectly well for decades, yet it's somehow managed to resist buggering up VAT on electronic goods and services, or telling us we should give votes to prisoners.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/27/revenge-of-the-tabloids-brexit-dacre-murdoch
Unanimity is a good thing but some seem quite happy for the bar to be as low as 52% in order to tear up our constitution.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/804716158360371200
And another thing, I don't think that elected L/Dem MP Olney will prove much use to the L/Dms if she cant stand the heat of a few attacking questions on radio, as happened yesterday when she was dragged off air by her handler.
I think not being in a hurry to trigger is fine, it gives us time to get our ducks in a row - of course who knew there would be three idiots given charge of it, but that's another issue.
If Dave had triggered, and stayed, then there would have been inevitably a leadership election, and chaos and we would be six months in to the two-year window.
Whereas our model of media ownership and (popular print) journalistic standards...not so much.
Does that make you feel better?
Clearly many in the PLP and in the wider party want rid of Corbyn because they want a less radically left manifesto. However for others, such as me, it isn't primarily policy it is personality. Let's keep our policies on the economy, education, health and renationalisation of key public utilities and services, but we need someone fronting them who can connect with the voters and in whom they can place their trust to run the country.
Whatever the trade or profession it seems to be considered bad form to root out the stupid and the incompetent"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/the-british-disease-is-now-rank-ineptitude-rr8x56f83
1) Educational achievement of those less well off
2) Better vocational training
3) higher wages for the unskilled
4) increased productivity
5) An end to unelected judges
6) rebasing house prices to the "right" level
7) Zero-rating of VAT on home energy supplies
...
Both campaigns were broad coalitions of people with varying perspectives. Migration was never a major issue for me. I was concerned by the near certain short term hit to the economy (I wavered more than expected in the polling booth). Sovereignty and the direction of travel of the EU were the critical factors.
I didn't see a big red bus, read a slogan and decide how to vote based on that, and I don't think leaving the EU will wave a magic wand that will make everything better.