The ' Chess ' episode of the West Wing is about military sales to Taiwan. The West Wing was always sugar rich liberal fantasy. But it's beginning to look like prophecy.
What he should not have done was to make big set-piece speeches saying he was prepared to campaign for leave.
And good evening, everyone.
If Cameron had campaigned for Leave - and he was as hated and mistrusted as much as everyone was saying on the previous thread - then surely Remain would have won.
You are kidding, right? He'd have won it by a landslide.
Stark Dawning has been driven Stark Raving Mad by Brexit.
If Cameron had come out for Brexit, Leave would have won by 60/40 or more.
Thbably would have won greater concessions on benefits, and would therefore have won his referendum.
The deal was fine; it addressed much that needed to be addressed, but was admittedly weak on immigration.
Perhaps also, it was all he was going to get? We seem to have had the EU27 pretty much speaking with one voice telling us what to expect. Now, of course this I'm sure is so much bluster and tactics, but what if...we weren't going to get a better deal then, and we might not get a great deal now?
The deal was shit. And he knew it was shit. And his Cabinet knew it was shit because they received it (according to the Times) in total stony silence.
The deal was when the referendum was lost.
The deal was shit because Cameron had already told his European colleagues that he would win the vote whatever, and because he had told the world he would always campaign for REMAIN, whatever the circumstances. Understandably, in that situation, dealing with a political moron like Cameron, the Europeans decided to give him fuck all as he had loudly promised to campaign for them even if he got fuck all.
On top of that, Cameron promised beforehand in the Bloomberg speech that he'd get a whole lot more than fuck all, and when he actually came back with the predictable fuck all, he tried to tell us he'd got the Deal of the Century, and when we all laughed in despair and said he had fuck all, he shut the fuck up and never mentioned his Deal again, throughout the campaign.
Draw your own conclusions.
It wasn shit.
Nah, it was shit.
It was not shit.
This is the greatest debate in PB history.
I'm holding back before rolling out my "no you fuck off."
Labour coming 4th would be quite something. It would mean they are dwindling into insignificance across the entirety of south, east and south west England, and the Midlands (absent London and Brum)
And also utterly irrelevant in Scotland.
Labour is staring at electoral death.
Labour's problem is affluent centre left and liberal Remainers are switching back to the LDs and the white working class are increasingly switching to UKIP over immigration and the middle class voters who voted for Blair and for Cameron are sticking with May. That leaves them with just ethnic minorities and the hard and traditional left, mainly in the inner cities, they will likely come 4th on Thursday in Sleaford and the County Council elections next year could see Corbyn lose seats even Ed Miliband won in 2013
I genuinely don't know how Labour come back from this.
There must be room for a left or centre left party of government, but the topography of British politics - from Scotland to FPTP - makes the UK an almost uniquely hostile environment for such a force.
How do they simultaneously appeal to playwrights in Islington and plumbers in Sunderland, as they used to do? It cannot be done. And Scotland is lost, seemingly forever.
It's over for them, barring some incredible black swan (not unlikely in 2016)
On a worst case scenario Labour would lose most of its working class vote to UKIP and its middle class vote to the LDs, if it is going to win again it needs to secure its middle class vote first and then once the Brexit deal is done and eventually immigration becomes less of an issue start to try and win back the working class voters who went to UKIP
No. Labour has to first hold its working class vote. They vote by tradition and habit. Once they get out of the habit of voting Labour they will not return. Whereas middle class voters are more fickle and more willing to return.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
A position I've never understood. What exactly were you hoping for from Cameron?
Actually, I was hoping for more from the EU. That they were capable of recognising an existential threat and adjusting accordingly, specifically on freedom of movement. The "four freedoms" aren't written on tablets of stone and shouldn't be treated as such.
I see what you mean, but given that the vast majority of our problems with freedom of movement - from waiving the A8 transition period, to refusing to reform the benefits system - were entirely self-inflicted, you can see why the EU was in a lose-lose position.
Understandably, in that situation, dealing with a political moron like Cameron, the Europeans decided to give him fuck all as he had loudly promised to campaign for them even if he got fuck all.
On top of that, Cameron promised beforehand in the Bloomberg speech that he'd get a whole lot more than fuck all, and when he actually came back with the predictable fuck all, he tried to tell us he'd got the Deal of the Century, and when we all laughed in despair and said he had fuck all, he shut the fuck up and never mentioned his Deal again, throughout the campaign.
Draw your own conclusions.
And yet half our political class wants us to stake out our position in advance for an even more important negotiation.
Like you say, draw your own conclusions.
I don't think our negotiating position is anything other than completely obvious:
As many of the benefits of single market access (especially financial services passporting) with as few as possible of the costs, either financial, constiutional or legal
Of course. So why was, for example, Ms Thornberry spending PMQs trying to extract a definitive Govt position on the Customs Union?
Because she's in opposition, and she looks good if she embarrasses the government.
Acting as if the government needs to have a completely free hand is preposterous in the modern world. David Davis isn't Palmerston and can't send a few gunboats to enforce his will.
The negotiations on both sides ought to be constrained by the norms of rational administration of first world countries. Pretending that we need to retain the option of commiting economic suicide as a means of creating some artificial leverage just underlines what a stupid exercise the whole thing is from our perspective.
Yes, because sending the negotiators into battle with one arm tied behind their back by a bunch of public red lines, is going to help our cause in what way?
David Cameron tried that back in February, look where it got him.
Of course there should be discussions with politicians of all sides in advance of the EU talks, I would suggest that the Privy Council is the appropriately private place for these talks, rather than shouting soundbites across the Commons or the media. The previous PM decided that no preparation was to be done for a Leave vote, everyone needs now to wait for that work to be done.
It's not being done to fit the daily news cycle for the next few months, it's being done to shape the future of the country.
Nah, don't agree with that. If Obama had done this the liberal media would be wanking all over his pictures right now and telling the world how amazing he is for supporting democracy against Chinese tyranny.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
The "deal" was when I hardened myself to vote Leave, after being a reluctant Remainer, and I never really looked back. It was a combination of the awful, embarrassing wankery of the deal itself (especially in contrast with what Cameron had promised to deliver) and the half-assed way Cameron still tried to pretend he'd got something amazing. It made me loathe Cameron, taking me for a fool, and just reinforced my desire to repudiate.
Apparently, in focus groups, the deal was when the referendum was lost: the public turned unremittingly hostile and skeptical. The Tories realised it had gone down terribly, and that's why they never mentioned it again, throughout the campaign, and turned to Project Fear.
Et voila.
Was it the SSM and SRM opt out that tipped you over? But I thought that was a good thing (don't forget we are implementing Basel III anyway).
Labour coming 4th would be quite something. It would mean they are dwindling into insignificance across the entirety of south, east and south west England, and the Midlands (absent London and Brum)
And also utterly irrelevant in Scotland.
Labour is staring at electoral death.
Labour's problem is affluent centre left and liberal Remainers are switching back to the LDs and the white working class are increasingly switching to UKIP over immigration and the middle class voters who voted for Blair and for Cameron are sticking with May. That leaves them with just ethnic minorities and the hard and traditional left, mainly in the inner cities, they will likely come 4th on Thursday in Sleaford after coming 3rd in Richmond Park and the County Council elections next year could see Corbyn lose seats even Ed Miliband won in 2013
Except that the Liberal Democrats still aren't improving in the national poll: by-elections and general elections remain clean different things. And, although shrunken, there's little sign of further contraction in Labour's voter coalition. IIRC they've not even been down as low as 25% in any of the GB-wide polls, and whilst I think it's fair to assume that the kind of swing voters in marginal seats that they need to attract want nothing of Corbyn, the surviving core vote appears substantial and surprisingly resilient. There are still, one suspects, a lot of white working class Labour voters who insist in adhering to tribal/brand loyalty, and refuse to be moved by the Ukip message.
I remain concerned that Labour may shamble on for a very long time as a zombie opposition - too weak to take down the Tories at a general election, but simultaneously too strong in their remaining heartlands to allow an alternative to rise up and take their place.
The LDs and UKIP are unlikely to overtake Labour for second but the latest yougov has both up on their 2015 share of the vote and Labour down
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
The "deal" was when I hardened myself to vote Leave, after being a reluctant Remainer, and I never really looked back. It was a combination of the awful, embarrassing wankery of the deal itself (especially in contrast with what Cameron had promised to deliver) and the half-assed way Cameron still tried to pretend he'd got something amazing. It made me loathe Cameron, taking me for a fool, and just reinforced my desire to repudiate.
Apparently, in focus groups, the deal was when the referendum was lost: the public turned unremittingly hostile and skeptical. The Tories realised it had gone down terribly, and that's why they never mentioned it again, throughout the campaign, and turned to Project Fear.
Et voila.
Any deal which includes an "emergency brake" as its centerpiece will inevitably look like it's been cobbled together to satisfy everyone and actually satisfy no-one. This is supposed to settle our position in Europe for another generation and the headline sounds like something you'd fit to a 1970s Tube train to try to squeeze another decade out of it?
Like I said below, I blame the EU more than Cameron. But he didn't help himself.
Labour coming 4th would be quite something. It would mean they are dwindling into insignificance across the entirety of south, east and south west England, and the Midlands (absent London and Brum)
And also utterly irrelevant in Scotland.
Labour is staring at electoral death.
Labour's problem is affluent centre left and liberal Remainers are switching back to the LDs and the white working class are increasingly switching to UKIP over immigration and the middle class voters who voted for Blair and for Cameron are sticking with May. That leaves them with just ethnic minorities and the hard and traditional left, mainly in the inner cities, they will likely come 4th on Thursday in Sleaford and the County Council elections next year could see Corbyn lose seats even Ed Miliband won in 2013
I genuinely don't know how Labour come back from this.
There must be room for a left or centre left party of government, but the topography of British politics - from Scotland to FPTP - makes the UK an almost uniquely hostile environment for such a force.
How do they simultaneously appeal to playwrights in Islington and plumbers in Sunderland, as they used to do? It cannot be done. And Scotland is lost, seemingly forever.
It's over for them, barring some incredible black swan (not unlikely in 2016)
On a worst case scenario Labour would lose most of its working class vote to UKIP and its middle class vote to the LDs, if it is going to win again it needs to secure its middle class vote first and then once the Brexit deal is done and eventually immigration becomes less of an issue start to try and win back the working class voters who went to UKIP
No. Labour has to first hold its working class vote. They vote by tradition and habit. Once they get out of the habit of voting Labour they will not return. Whereas middle class voters are more fickle and more willing to return.
The tribal Labour vote will stay regardless, those who may switch to UKIP would only be won over by an anti immigration message which would turn off the middle class centre left
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
The "deal" was when I hardened myself to vote Leave, after being a reluctant Remainer, and I never really looked back. It was a combination of the awful, embarrassing wankery of the deal itself (especially in contrast with what Cameron had promised to deliver) and the half-assed way Cameron still tried to pretend he'd got something amazing. It made me loathe Cameron, taking me for a fool, and just reinforced my desire to repudiate.
Apparently, in focus groups, the deal was when the referendum was lost: the public turned unremittingly hostile and skeptical. The Tories realised it had gone down terribly, and that's why they never mentioned it again, throughout the campaign, and turned to Project Fear.
Et voila.
Any deal which includes an "emergency brake" as its centerpiece will inevitably look like it's been cobbled together to satisfy everyone and actually satisfy no-one. This is supposed to settle our position in Europe for another generation and the headline sounds like something you'd fit to a 1970s Tube train to try to squeeze another decade out of it?
Like I said below, I blame the EU more than Cameron. But he didn't help himself.
The PB Leavers' model solution (EFTA/EEA) also includes an emergency brake.
However they are possibly just one amazing charismatic leader away from a startling rebirth. Voters will tire of the Tories soon, and seek an alternative. But where is that leader? And how will he or she get elected as leader?
I genuinely don't know how Labour come back from this.
There must be room for a left or centre left party of government, but the topography of British politics - from Scotland to FPTP - makes the UK an almost uniquely hostile environment for such a force.
How do they simultaneously appeal to playwrights in Islington and plumbers in Sunderland, as they used to do? It cannot be done. And Scotland is lost, seemingly forever.
It's over for them, barring some incredible black swan (not unlikely in 2016)
If memory serves me aright, it used to be the case that the 'playwrights in Islington' supported Labour because they wanted to show their support for 'plumbers in Sunderland'.
If that was the case way back when, what happened to change the reason the 'playwrights' support Labour?
We see the end result in the 'plumbers' voting Leave and the 'playwrights' voting Remain: a clear divergence of interests now.
immigration, immigration, immigration,
Mass immigration makes life better for playwrights in Islington (cheaper plumbers!), it makes life harder for plumbers in Sunderland (too many cheap plumbers).
Until Labour square the immigration circle, they are screwed. Right now they are ideologically incapable of doing this.
It is possible to see the Lib Dems reviving as the big Remain party to 15%, Labour becoming the Corbynite left on 20-25%, UKIP being ultra-Brexit on 5-10%, and the Tories governing in total perpetuity as the sane option for the other 40%.
What happens when May starts to lose her popularity (remember the Brown bounce), the Brexit negotiations fail to satisfy the loons, we go into a recession either Brexit induced or otherwise, ( Brexit will be blamed anyway) and labour somehow get a new leader whilst the Lib Dems harvest the increasingly voluble Remain/return faction?
Answer...1997 revisited, only on steroids. Not inconceivable and just as likely as the scenario you suggest.The right of the Tories will be tolerated all the time they appear (considerably) more competent than the opposition but will never be liked by most.
One would imagine 18 years without a majority might have drummed into the dinosaur like skulls of Bone, Cash, IDS et al that having a leader capable of winning was a significant advantage to their party.
Nah, don't agree with that. If Obama had done this the liberal media would be wanking all over his pictures right now and telling the world how amazing he is for supporting democracy against Chinese tyranny.
Ha, very true.
Nick Spencer (and many, many others of the liberal media) are completely losing it. Even the US 'comedy' shows are wall to wall with Trump Is Dangerous and Racist, completely unwatchable except as a parody of themselves.
MPs backed Labour's motion, saying the government should publish a plan and it was "Parliament's responsibility to properly scrutinise the government" over Brexit, by 448 votes to 75 - a margin of 373.
This followed another vote over the government's amendment to the motion, which added the proviso that its timetable for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, getting formal talks with the EU under way, should be respected.
MPs backed this by 461 votes to 89 - a margin of 372.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Th Et voila.
Was it the SSM and SRM opt out that tipped you over? But I thought that was a good thing (don't forget we are implementing Basel III anyway).
Read the various and interesting essays and books now being published about Brexit. You'll find that I am right: it was the Deal that broke Cameron. That's when public opinion turned, and panic first set in the Remain camp (tho they hid their anxieties, initially)
FWIW what turned me was the 5 year temporary emergency brake on second child benefits for 35 year old Romanian electricians without a job offer, or whatever it was. It was just so laughably risibly technocratic and insulting and stupid and SHIT.
Cameron needed to say to the British people: we can stop such and such EU immigration completely, for so many years, and that's that. He needed something emphatic and easy-to-grasp. The EU leaders offered him instead an insulting piece of dreck, and the insult was handed on to UK voters, who responded accordingly.
He could never say that.
If that is what he needed to say then we were always destined to go out, regardless of what he came back with.
Stopping such and such EU immigration completely is just not consistent with being a member of the EU. And that's fine for both sides. We are seeing that now with the noises about the indivisible four freedoms.
Labour coming 4th would be quite something. It would mean they are dwindling into insignificance across the entirety of south, east and south west England, and the Midlands (absent London and Brum)
And also utterly irrelevant in Scotland.
Labour is staring at electoral death.
Labour's problem is affluent centre left and liberal Remainers are switching back to the LDs and the white working class are increasingly switching to UKIP over immigration and the middle class voters who voted for Blair and for Cameron are sticking with May. That leaves them with just ethnic minorities and the hard and traditional left, mainly in the inner cities, they will likely come 4th on Thursday in Sleaford after coming 3rd in Richmond Park and the County Council elections next year could see Corbyn lose seats even Ed Miliband won in 2013
Except that the Liberal Democrats still aren't improving in the national poll: by-elections and general elections remain clean different things. And, although shrunken, there's little sign of further contraction in Labour's voter coalition. IIRC they've not even been down as low as 25% in any of the GB-wide polls, and whilst I think it's fair to assume that the kind of swing voters in marginal seats that they need to attract want
I remain concerned that Labour may shamble on for a very long time as a zombie opposition - too weak to take down the Tories at a general election, but simultaneously too strong in their remaining heartlands to allow an alternative to rise up and take their place.
That's what I envisage. Labour are too entrenched and solid in their heartlands, even now, to collapse like the Liberals in the 1920s, yet they are also too crippled to break out, and win back the south and Scotland.
They could lumber on like this for 15 years, never winning, yet never entirely losing.
However they are possibly just one amazing charismatic leader away from a startling rebirth. Voters will tire of the Tories soon, and seek an alternative. But where is that leader? And how will he or she get elected as leader?
They're out there alright, and there is a path to power.
More seriously, I think the concern of Labour being too strong to be replaced, not strong enough to challenge, is a real one, particularly if Corbyn is defeated but not destroyed in 2020.
In Witney the raw Labour vote was 60% of their GE vote, in-line with turnout, so they were not squeezed at all. In Richmond it was only 20%. I would expect Sleaford to be more representative of the former than the latter. For that reason the Labour vote seems low to me.
One factor that makes this hard to call is just how low turnout will be on a cold winter's day, in an extremely safe Conservative seat.
There have been no shortage of turnouts below 30%; could we see 25%? (Manchester Central was just 18.2% in 2012, but I cannot imagine we'll be anywhere near that low.)
If you look at recent by-elections a pattern emerges; safe labour seats see appalling turnouts e.g. Manchester Central. Safe Tory seats however maintain decent turnouts (they also tend to have relatively high turnout at GEs). Safe Tory seats have tended to get roughly about 50%.
Kensington was 30%, but your overall point is, I'm sure, correct.
Starting from a low base which is why I mentioned the high GE turnout. Kensington is a London seat which had only 54.7% turnout at the previous GE.
Richmond had 76.5% at GE15 down to 53.44% in the by-election. Witney had 73.3% at GE15 down to 46.8% in the by-election. Rochester 64.9% at GE10 down to 50.6% in the by-election. Clacton 64.2% at GE10 down to 51% in the by-election. Newark had 71.4% at GE10 down to 52.79% in the by-election.
Sleaford had 70.2% turnout at GE15, so I would be shocked if it went below 40% say.
40-45% would be guess.
Most of the other by elections were big events compared to this.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Th Et voila.
Was it the SSM and SRM opt out that tipped you over? But I thought that was a good thing (don't forget we are implementing Basel III anyway).
Read the various and interesting essays and books now being published about Brexit. You'll find that I am right: it was the Deal that broke Cameron. That's when public opinion turned, and panic first set in the Remain camp (tho they hid their anxieties, initially)
FWIW what turned me was the 5 year temporary emergency brake on second child benefits for 35 year old Romanian electricians without a job offer, or whatever it was. It was just so laughably risibly technocratic and insulting and stupid and SHIT.
Cameron needed to say to the British people: we can stop such and such EU immigration completely, for so many years, and that's that. He needed something emphatic and easy-to-grasp. The EU leaders offered him instead an insulting piece of dreck, and the insult was handed on to UK voters, who responded accordingly.
He could never say that.
If that is what he needed to say then we were always destined to go out, regardless of what he came back with.
Stopping such and such EU immigration completely is just not consistent with being a member of the EU. And that's fine for both sides. We are seeing that now with the noises about the indivisible four freedoms.
But that is nothing to do with the deal.
What makes Cameron so politically poor is that he didn't see it coming. He should have come back from Europe and said he would, on the basis of the poor deal, campaign for a leave vote. He would still be PM today and chances are the EU would have come back with a much better deal once the polls swung to 60/40 leads for leave.
Cameron should have said: We just want what you guys had, for five or ten years, a complete moratorium on Eastern European migration. Or just a prohibition on East European migration without a job offer.
If he'd come back with something modestly dramatic like that, he'd have won his vote.
He didn't have the vision. If he had started off by squaring it with the A8 countries directly, and promised to direct a big chunk of our DfID budget to them in return for backing the idea then he might have got somewhere, and we might have achieved something useful. Instead he just expected Merkel not only to do his bidding, but to know his voters better than he did.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Th Et voila.
Was it the SSM and SRM opt out that tipped you over? But I thought that was a good thing (don't forget we are implementing Basel III anyway).
Read the various and interesting essays and books now being published about Brexit. You'll find that I am right: it was the Deal that broke Cameron. That's when public opinion turned, and panic first set in the Remain camp (tho they hid their anxieties, initially)
FWIW what turned me was the 5 year temporary emergency brake on second child benefits for 35 year old Romanian electricians without a job offer, or whatever it was. It was just so laughably risibly technocratic and insulting and stupid and SHIT.
Cameron needed to say to the British people: we can stop such and such EU immigration completely, for so many years, and that's that. He needed something emphatic and easy-to-grasp. The EU leaders offered him instead an insulting piece of dreck, and the insult was handed on to UK voters, who responded accordingly.
He could never say that.
If that is what he needed to say then we were always destined to go out, regardless of what he came back with.
Stopping such and such EU immigration completely is just not consistent with being a member of the EU. And that's fine for both sides. We are seeing that now with the noises about the indivisible four freedoms.
But that is nothing to do with the deal.
What makes Cameron so politically poor is that he didn't see it coming. He should have come back from Europe and said he would, on the basis of the poor deal, campaign for a leave vote. He would still be PM today and chances are the EU would have come back with a much better deal once the polls swung to 60/40 leads for leave.
This is where you're just as deluded as him. The EU wouldn't have come back with anything in those circumstances, as much as they'd have regretted it.
@SeanT This is the nub of it. You mock cheap plumbers as only benefiting Playwrights in Islington ( an odd pejorative for a Novelist in Camden to use ). But 99.9% of Britons occupy a house. So cheaper plumbers benefit 99.9% of people. Doubly so as not only do we get cheaper plumbing but the money we save gets spent on other things benefiting those who earn a living from those other things.
We all secretly know this is economically illiterate bollocks which is why the Leave campaign never ever featured cheaper plumbing selecting instead Brown, Muslim Turks as it's foreigner of choice.
Clearly most voters feel immigration is far too high for far too long. But Leave never made that case honestly. In a curious way it was as adverse to talking about immigration as the liberal left was. It never said plumbing would get more expensive. It blamed western wide declines in all wages on the EU. It wanted a points based system on immigration which would be mean more plumbers. It wanted " control " over immigration suggesting plumbers were OK on a work permit but not if they came as European Citizens. They told " Commonwealth " communities they'd get more visas for relatives if we took less plumbers but really...
At no point did Leave ever say " We can allay your cultural unease about this ahistoral level of immigrantion and support wages for the bottom 10% of earners because frankly those are the only folk who's wages are depressed by immigration. "
Because that strategy would would never have got them to 52%.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Th Et voila.
Was it the SSM and SRM opt out that tipped you over? But I thought that was a good thing (don't forget we are implementing Basel III anyway).
Read the various and interesting essays and books now being published about Brexit. You'll find that I am right: it was the Deal that broke Cameron. That's when public opinion turned, and panic first set in the Remain camp (tho they hid their anxieties, initially)
FWIW what turned me was the 5 year temporary emergency brake on second child benefits for 35 year old Romanian electricians without a job offer, or whatever it was. It was just so laughably risibly technocratic and insulting and stupid and SHIT.
Cameron needed to say to the British people: we can stop such and such EU immigration completely, for so many years, and that's that. He needed something emphatic and easy-to-grasp. The EU leaders offered him instead an insulting piece of dreck, and the insult was handed on to UK voters, who responded accordingly.
He could never say that.
If that is what he needed to say then we were always destined to go out, regardless of what he came back with.
Stopping such and such EU immigration completely is just not consistent with being a member of the EU. And that's fine for both sides. We are seeing that now with the noises about the indivisible four freedoms.
But that is nothing to do with the deal.
What makes Cameron so politically poor is that he didn't see it coming. He should have come back from Europe and said he would, on the basis of the poor deal, campaign for a leave vote. He would still be PM today and chances are the EU would have come back with a much better deal once the polls swung to 60/40 leads for leave.
Which meant that Brexit was all about immigration, something we've been assured was not the case.
Perhaps Dave, like @Richard_Tyndall, didn't care that much about immigration.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
The "deal" was when I hardened myself to vote Leave, after being a reluctant Remainer, and I never really looked back. It was a combination of the awful, embarrassing wankery of the deal itself (especially in contrast with what Cameron had promised to deliver) and the half-assed way Cameron still tried to pretend he'd got something amazing. It made me loathe Cameron, taking me for a fool, and just reinforced my desire to repudiate.
Apparently, in focus groups, the deal was when the referendum was lost: the public turned unremittingly hostile and skeptical. The Tories realised it had gone down terribly, and that's why they never mentioned it again, throughout the campaign, and turned to Project Fear.
Et voila.
IIRC the deal might have been a good one, but the trouble was that the EU has been known to repudiate such deals before.
There was a distinct risk that - after we'd voted Remain - the ECJ would have torn the deal to pieces.
It's not at all likely that the referendum would have been re-run, had they done so.
However they are possibly just one amazing charismatic leader away from a startling rebirth. Voters will tire of the Tories soon, and seek an alternative. But where is that leader? And how will he or she get elected as leader?
I genuinely don't know how Labour come back from this.
There must be room for a left or centre left party of government, but the topography of British politics - from Scotland to FPTP - makes the UK an almost uniquely hostile environment for such a force.
How do they simultaneously appeal to playwrights in Islington and plumbers in Sunderland, as they used to do? It cannot be done. And Scotland is lost, seemingly forever.
It's over for them, barring some incredible black swan (not unlikely in 2016)
It is perfectly possible to come up with such a party.
The major issue is that, unlike the party of Atlee & Co. the metropolitan "progressive" types strongly dislike "Britishness".
Try imagine explaining the Bevan that jobs in the UK *shouldn't* be prioritised for British workers....
In many ways, the Labour voters in the North & in Scotland didn't leave the Labour party. The Labour Party left them.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Th Et voila.
Was it the SSM and SRM opt out that tipped you over? But I thought that was a good thing (don't forget we are implementing Basel III anyway).
Read the various and interesting essays and books now being published about Brexit. You'll find that I am right: it was the Deal that broke Cameron. That's when public opinion turned, and panic first set in the Remain camp (tho they hid their anxieties, initially)
FWIW what turned me was the 5 year temporary emergency brake on second child benefits for 35 year old Romanian electricians without a job offer, or whatever it was. It was just so laughably risibly technocratic and insulting and stupid and SHIT.
Cameron needed to say to the British people: we can stop such and such EU immigration completely, for so many years, and that's that. He needed something emphatic and easy-to-grasp. The EU leaders offered him instead an insulting piece of dreck, and the insult was handed on to UK voters, who responded accordingly.
He could never say that.
If that is what he needed to say then we were always destined to go out, regardless of what he came back with.
Stopping such and such EU immigration completely is just not consistent with being a member of the EU. And that's fine for both sides. We are seeing that now with the noises about the indivisible four freedoms.
But that is nothing to do with the deal.
What makes Cameron so politically poor is that he didn't see it coming. He should have come back from Europe and said he would, on the basis of the poor deal, campaign for a leave vote. He would still be PM today and chances are the EU would have come back with a much better deal once the polls swung to 60/40 leads for leave.
This is where you're just as deluded as him. The EU wouldn't have come back with anything in those circumstances, as much as they'd have regretted it.
They would have and if they didn't then he'd still be PM and the most popular one since Churchill.
It offered no serious measures to deal with the inflow of people nor real protections against further EU changes.
Trust had broken down with not just the EU, but also with UK politicians.What good is a Cameron veto or a Major opt out when it's handed over to a Corbyn or Blair?
The only way was out. Cameron had to convince them that the whole project and direction was wrong.
I would be interested to see how many of the 48% voted the way they did because they trusted Cameron and Osborne's mistaken prophesies of imminent economic doom.
Labour coming 4th would be quite something. It would mean they are dwindling into insignificance across the entirety of south, east and south west England, and the Midlands (absent London and Brum)
And also utterly irrelevant in Scotland.
Labour is staring at electoral death.
Labour's problem is affluent centre left and liberal Remainers are switching back to the LDs and the white working class are increasingly switching to UKIP over immigration and the middle class voters who voted for Blair and for Cameron are sticking with May. That leaves them with just ethnic minorities and the hard and traditional left, mainly in the inner cities, they will likely come 4th on Thursday in Sleaford after coming 3rd in Richmond Park and the County Council elections next year could see Corbyn lose seats even Ed Miliband won in 2013
Except that the Liberal Democrats still aren't improving in the national poll: by-elections and general elections remain clean different things. And, although shrunken, there's little sign of further contraction in Labour's voter coalition. IIRC they've not even been down as low as 25% in any of the GB-wide polls, and whilst I think it's fair to assume that the kind of swing voters in marginal seats that they need to attract want nothing of Corbyn, the surviving core vote appears substantial and surprisingly resilient. There are still, one suspects, a lot of white working class Labour voters who insist in adhering to tribal/brand loyalty, and refuse to be moved by the Ukip message.
I remain concerned that Labour may shamble on for a very long time as a zombie opposition - too weak to take down the Tories at a general election, but simultaneously too strong in their remaining heartlands to allow an alternative to rise up and take their place.
The LDs and UKIP are unlikely to overtake Labour for second but the latest yougov has both up on their 2015 share of the vote and Labour down
The mean of all polls taken since May became PM effectively shows no change relative to the 2015 GE, other than an increase in the Tory vote share and a decrease in the Labour one. The other parties have remained more or less static.
Which meant that Brexit was all about immigration, something we've been assured was not the case.
Perhaps Dave, like @Richard_Tyndall, didn't care that much about immigration.
More a case of the EU holding no value to our membership and essentially giving our PM a big "fuck you". I know a few people who went from Remain to leave on that basis.
The mean of all polls taken since May became PM effectively shows no change relative to the 2015 GE, other than an increase in the Tory vote share and a decrease in the Labour one. The other parties have remained more or less static.
Opinion polls.
Do we really still take into account opinion polls ?
I think based on Westminster and Local by-elections the Tories and UKIP are lower and the LD are higher than the polls say.
For Labour it's a mixed picture so probably not much difference since 2015.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Yep. It was the deal that confirmed my doubts about whether the EU was truly capable of meaningful reform into a conviction that it was not.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
I genuinely don't know how Labour come back from this.
There must be room for a left or centre left party of government, but the topography of British politics - from Scotland to FPTP - makes the UK an almost uniquely hostile environment for such a force.
How do they simultaneously appeal to playwrights in Islington and plumbers in Sunderland, as they used to do? It cannot be done. And Scotland is lost, seemingly forever.
It's over for them, barring some incredible black swan (not unlikely in 2016)
It is perfectly possible to come up with such a party.
The major issue is that, unlike the party of Atlee & Co. the metropolitan "progressive" types strongly dislike "Britishness".
Try imagine explaining the Bevan that jobs in the UK *shouldn't* be prioritised for British workers....
In many ways, the Labour voters in the North & in Scotland didn't leave the Labour party. The Labour Party left them.
Nevertheless, Clinton scored more votes in the US, and if you remove the negative factors associated with Clinton as candidate, the Democrats would have probably scored a comfortable win, this probably remaining true even if both parties had put forward mainstream candidates. So, in the US, despite Trump's appeal to a slice of the 'deplorables', the coalition of liberals, minorities, and union workers apparently more or less hangs together - the same one that Labour apparently cannot rebuild here in the U.K.
Which meant that Brexit was all about immigration, something we've been assured was not the case.
Perhaps Dave, like @Richard_Tyndall, didn't care that much about immigration.
I don't remember the deal having pretty much anything, it only had I remember a fig leaf on immigration, but I can't remember if it contained anything else on any other issue.
That's probably a definition of a bad deal, getting a fig leaf on one issue and nothing in all the others and still pretend it was a giant success.
David Cameron himself stopped campaigning on the deal within a week, it was that bad.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Yep. It was the deal that confirmed my doubts about whether the EU was truly capable of meaningful reform into a conviction that it was not.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
Yes, the fact that the best the EU could do was a non-binding commitment to an opt out for ever closer union (to be torn up by thr ECJ within a year), £50m savings on child benefits, nothing on in-working benefits, a vague commitment on financial services but no specific mechanism to protect non-EMU nations and a laughable red/yellow card system showed that the EU is undeformable.
I genuinely don't know how Labour come back from this.
There must be room for a left or centre left party of government, but the topography of British politics - from Scotland to FPTP - makes the UK an almost uniquely hostile environment for such a force.
How do they simultaneously appeal to playwrights in Islington and plumbers in Sunderland, as they used to do? It cannot be done. And Scotland is lost, seemingly forever.
It's over for them, barring some incredible black swan (not unlikely in 2016)
It is perfectly possible to come up with such a party.
The major issue is that, unlike the party of Atlee & Co. the metropolitan "progressive" types strongly dislike "Britishness".
Try imagine explaining the Bevan that jobs in the UK *shouldn't* be prioritised for British workers....
In many ways, the Labour voters in the North & in Scotland didn't leave the Labour party. The Labour Party left them.
Nevertheless, Clinton scored more votes in the US, and if you remove the negative factors associated with Clinton as candidate, the Democrats would have probably scored a comfortable win, this probably remaining true even if both parties had put forward mainstream candidates. So, in the US, despite Trump's appeal to a slice of the 'deplorables', the coalition of liberals, minorities, and union workers apparently more or less hangs together - the same one that Labour apparently cannot rebuild here in the U.K.
And if you remove the negatives from Trump he would have won still.
That's why Trump won, his policies where so much more popular than Hillary's that it overcame his negatives.
Even the Joker found that out, throwing money and jobs to people is popular:
Which meant that Brexit was all about immigration, something we've been assured was not the case.
Perhaps Dave, like @Richard_Tyndall, didn't care that much about immigration.
More a case of the EU holding no value to our membership and essentially giving our PM a big "fuck you". I know a few people who went from Remain to leave on that basis.
So it was all about immigration.
Unless you're one of the people who, comically, think a deal agreed by 28 EU heads of state would be struck down by the ECJ. And we would have said "fine".
There were a few comments the other day about the Russians having another plane crashed. Sadly today the US lost another F18 Hornet in the sea off Japan.
Which meant that Brexit was all about immigration, something we've been assured was not the case.
Perhaps Dave, like @Richard_Tyndall, didn't care that much about immigration.
More a case of the EU holding no value to our membership and essentially giving our PM a big "fuck you". I know a few people who went from Remain to leave on that basis.
So it was all about immigration.
Unless you're one of the people who, comically, think a deal agreed by 28 EU heads of state would be struck down by the ECJ. And we would have said "fine".
What other choice would there be, a rerun?
Again, more about disrespect for the UK than immigration, at least people who were swung by the poor deal.
Guardian says that LibDems say that the Labour rebels were:
Rushanara Ali: Graham Allen; Ben Bradshaw; Ann Coffey; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Jim Dowd; Louise Ellman; Chris Evans; Paul Farrelly; Mike Gapes; Helen Hayes; Meg Hillier; Peter Kyle; David Lammy; Chris Leslie; Ian Murray; Barry Sheerman; Tulip Siddiq; Angela Smith; Catherine West; and Daniel Zeichner.
The only advantage of the liberal Atlas shrugging is we now get experimental data on what life is like without the elites. It's too early to tell. The only hard bit of evidence we have is at the 5 month mark the EU27 have not offered us a better deal. Indeed they voided Cameron's deal the day after the referendum and took it off the table. Since then we've just had the mild trolling of them seeming keener on us invoking A50 than we are. Of course that may be more about hurt pride than than the strength of their negotiating position. Never the less as tonight's Commons vote shows we're less than 4 months away from A50 invocation. The better deal we've been promised will be taking shape throughout 2017. I can't wait.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Yep. It was the deal that confirmed my doubts about whether the EU was truly capable of meaningful reform into a conviction that it was not.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
Agree. I wanted to be able to take the easy option and remain, but the deal was crap. Cameron trying to sell it as great was insulting frankly. We were being taken for idiots by that. That said, it also showed the EU was not for reform, not for turning, nothing would divert them from "ever closer union" certainly not anything as "trivial " as whether people wanted it. Their utter utter lack of introspection since June 23rd is breathtaking. To them the Brits are "faulty", and that's it. Not a bat squeak have I heard from anybody on the Continent thinking out loud that losing the Brits might just have something to do with EU policies too.
Shame really. It really was a good idea "Europe", but they screwed it up by being so convinced of the rectitude of the "Project" they forgot to convince enough of us or even think convincing was in any way needed.
I have therefore not regretted my vote for a second. Separation will not be the path of least resistance but I'm convinced it's the right one for us. Let's hope we and they can remain good friends once the bun fight of the process of leaving is over.
Note: reports suggest that only five Lib Dem MPs actually voted against the Brexit motion. Very strange if true. Now that they seem to be centring their entire electoral offer around a Continuity Remain position, you would've thought they'd have the wherewithal to get nine people in the same place at the same time.
Guardian says that LibDems say that the Labour rebels were:
Rushanara Ali: Graham Allen; Ben Bradshaw; Ann Coffey; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Jim Dowd; Louise Ellman; Chris Evans; Paul Farrelly; Mike Gapes; Helen Hayes; Meg Hillier; Peter Kyle; David Lammy; Chris Leslie; Ian Murray; Barry Sheerman; Tulip Siddiq; Angela Smith; Catherine West; and Daniel Zeichner.
I wonder what proportion of these rebels represent Leave-leaning seats with a strong Ukip presence, yet voted according to their "conscience" anyway?
A genuine question. Would be fascinated to know...
Note: reports suggest that only five Lib Dem MPs actually voted against the Brexit motion. Very strange if true. Now that they seem to be centring their entire electoral offer around a Continuity Remain position, you would've thought they'd have the wherewithal to get nine people in the same place at the same time.
Guardian says that LibDems say that the Labour rebels were:
Rushanara Ali: Graham Allen; Ben Bradshaw; Ann Coffey; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Jim Dowd; Louise Ellman; Chris Evans; Paul Farrelly; Mike Gapes; Helen Hayes; Meg Hillier; Peter Kyle; David Lammy; Chris Leslie; Ian Murray; Barry Sheerman; Tulip Siddiq; Angela Smith; Catherine West; and Daniel Zeichner.
I wonder what proportion of these rebels represent Leave-leaning seats with a strong Ukip presence, yet voted according to their "conscience" anyway?
A genuine question. Would be fascinated to know...
Tulip is my local MP, and Hampstead is about 75% Remain
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Yep. It was the deal that confirmed my doubts about whether the EU was truly capable of meaningful reform into a conviction that it was not.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
Yes, the fact that the best the EU could do was a non-binding commitment to an opt out for ever closer union (to be torn up by thr ECJ within a year), £50m savings on child benefits, nothing on in-working benefits, a vague commitment on financial services but no specific mechanism to protect non-EMU nations and a laughable red/yellow card system showed that the EU is undeformable.
"Nothing on in work benefits ". This is the nub of it. I know you regularly post demonstrable untruths about the EU but that's a whopper. It seems far more likely you hate the EU so much you'd have voted out if every Briton had been offered a Golden Elephant to stay. Which is fine. I just don't understand all this ' well this terrible deal ( which I'll post lies about ) was the final straw. ' when the final straw was clearly Maastricht if not earlier.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Yep. It was the deal that confirmed my doubts about whether the EU was truly capable of meaningful reform into a conviction that it was not.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
The EU was never going to truly chance because it didn't and still doesn't think it needs to, not really. When populist urgings caused issues they made some appropriate noises, before returning to talk of contagion and carrying on much as before. Only time will tell if us leaving will be enough of a warning that they address some of their issues more seriously.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Yep. It was the deal that confirmed my doubts about whether the EU was truly capable of meaningful reform into a conviction that it was not.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
Yes, the fact that the best the EU could do was a non-binding commitment to an opt out for ever closer union (to be torn up by thr ECJ within a year), £50m savings on child benefits, nothing on in-working benefits, a vague commitment on financial services but no specific mechanism to protect non-EMU nations and a laughable red/yellow card system showed that the EU is undeformable.
"Nothing on in work benefits ". This is the nub of it. I know you regularly post demonstrable untruths about the EU but that's a whopper. It seems far more likely you hate the EU so much you'd have voted out if every Briton had been offered a Golden Elephant to stay. Which is fine. I just don't understand all this ' well this terrible deal ( which I'll post lies about ) was the final straw. ' when the final straw was clearly Maastricht if not earlier.
So what was there in the deal to stop EU migrants from claiming tax credits and housing benefits after 90 days? Or even benefits in kind like healthcare and education for their children?
I loathe the EU as much as you seem to love it. One day I do hope you'll leave for Brussels and not look back, I think you'll be happier there.
Guardian says that LibDems say that the Labour rebels were:
Rushanara Ali: Graham Allen; Ben Bradshaw; Ann Coffey; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Jim Dowd; Louise Ellman; Chris Evans; Paul Farrelly; Mike Gapes; Helen Hayes; Meg Hillier; Peter Kyle; David Lammy; Chris Leslie; Ian Murray; Barry Sheerman; Tulip Siddiq; Angela Smith; Catherine West; and Daniel Zeichner.
Not enough. Labour MP's clearly know the significance of voting for May's A50 timetable is. Doing it *during* the A50 Supreme Court hearing and while May is off flogging arms to Islamic dictatorships " west of Suez" is quite another.
They've bought into Brexit and tonight was the night they signed in blood.
3-4 of them will probably fall in that category (Penistone, Islwyn, Newcastle...I suppose also Huddersfield)
The constituencies of those are Bethnal Green Nottingham North Exeter Stockport Bermondsey Walthamstow Swansea West Lewisham West Liverpool Riverside Islwyn Newcastle under Lyme Ilford South Dulwich Hackney South Hove Tottenham Nottingham East Edinburgh South Huddersfield Hampstead Stockbridge and Penistone Hornsey Cambridge
Guardian says that LibDems say that the Labour rebels were:
Rushanara Ali: Graham Allen; Ben Bradshaw; Ann Coffey; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Jim Dowd; Louise Ellman; Chris Evans; Paul Farrelly; Mike Gapes; Helen Hayes; Meg Hillier; Peter Kyle; David Lammy; Chris Leslie; Ian Murray; Barry Sheerman; Tulip Siddiq; Angela Smith; Catherine West; and Daniel Zeichner.
I wonder what proportion of these rebels represent Leave-leaning seats with a strong Ukip presence, yet voted according to their "conscience" anyway?
A genuine question. Would be fascinated to know...
Note: reports suggest that only five Lib Dem MPs actually voted against the Brexit motion. Very strange if true. Now that they seem to be centring their entire electoral offer around a Continuity Remain position, you would've thought they'd have the wherewithal to get nine people in the same place at the same time.
On Cameron and the referendum. NEVER run a referendum where any of the options is unviable. I don't mean that we couldn't physically leave the EU. In fact we can and we will. But unviable in the sense that a Leave result could never be achieved without serious detriment to our interests. Cameron knew that and thought he could persuade the public that a Leave vote would be very damaging and that would put the matter to rest.
As an aside, Cameron's foolhardiness doesn't let the Leave promoters off the hook. They were variously too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge what Cameron did realise: that their Leave campaign was the damaging one.
3-4 of them will probably fall in that category (Penistone, Islwyn, Newcastle...I suppose also Huddersfield)
The constituencies of those are Bethnal Green Nottingham North Exeter Stockport Bermondsey Walthamstow Swansea West Lewisham West Liverpool Riverside Islwyn Newcastle under Lyme Ilford South Dulwich Hackney South Hove Tottenham Nottingham East Edinburgh South Huddersfield Hampstead Stockbridge and Penistone Hornsey Cambridge
Guardian says that LibDems say that the Labour rebels were:
Rushanara Ali: Graham Allen; Ben Bradshaw; Ann Coffey; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Jim Dowd; Louise Ellman; Chris Evans; Paul Farrelly; Mike Gapes; Helen Hayes; Meg Hillier; Peter Kyle; David Lammy; Chris Leslie; Ian Murray; Barry Sheerman; Tulip Siddiq; Angela Smith; Catherine West; and Daniel Zeichner.
I wonder what proportion of these rebels represent Leave-leaning seats with a strong Ukip presence, yet voted according to their "conscience" anyway?
A genuine question. Would be fascinated to know...
Stocksbridge/Huddersfield must have both been leave.
When we did the little poll the other day, I put the moment of Dave's 'deal' in February as the key defining moment of the year. He came back with almost empty hands from Brussels but told us he had the best deal ever.
Before that date he was riding high in the polls and leading a popular government, four months later he had resigned.
The deal was what swung several PB'ers behind Leave, myself included.
Now obviously we're not a very representative bunch on here, but then again the margin was pretty tight.
Yep. It was the deal that confirmed my doubts about whether the EU was truly capable of meaningful reform into a conviction that it was not.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
Yes, the fact that the best the EU could do was a non-binding commitment to an opt out for ever closer union (to be torn up by thr ECJ within a year), £50m savings on child benefits, nothing on in-working benefits, a vague commitment on financial services but no specific mechanism to protect non-EMU nations and a laughable red/yellow card system showed that the EU is undeformable.
"Nothing on in work benefits ". This is the nub of it. I know you regularly post demonstrable untruths about the EU but that's a whopper. It seems far more likely you hate the EU so much you'd have voted out if every Briton had been offered a Golden Elephant to stay. Which is fine. I just don't understand all this ' well this terrible deal ( which I'll post lies about ) was the final straw. ' when the final straw was clearly Maastricht if not earlier.
So what was there in the deal to stop EU migrants from claiming tax credits and housing benefits after 90 days? Or even benefits in kind like healthcare and education for their children?
I loathe the EU as much as you seem to love it. One day I do hope you'll leave for Brussels and not look back, I think you'll be happier there.
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
Note: reports suggest that only five Lib Dem MPs actually voted against the Brexit motion. Very strange if true. Now that they seem to be centring their entire electoral offer around a Continuity Remain position, you would've thought they'd have the wherewithal to get nine people in the same place at the same time.
Check who were the tellers. They don't vote. At least one would've been a Lib Dem, possibly both.
Rushanara Ali - LONDON - Bethnal Green: Graham Allen - Nottingham N Ben Bradshaw - Exeter Ann Coffey - Stockport Neil Coyle - LONDON - Bermondsey Stella Creasy - LONDON - Walthamstow Geraint Davies - Swansea W Jim Dowd - LONDON - Lewisham Louise Ellman - Liverpool Riverside Chris Evans - Islwyn Paul Farrelly - Newcastle Under Lyme Mike Gapes - LONDON - Ilford S Helen Hayes - LONDON - Dulwich Meg Hillier - LONDON - Hackney S Peter Kyle; - Hove (London by the sea) David Lammy - LONDON - Tottenham Chris Leslie - Nottingham E Ian Murray - Edinburgh S Barry Sheerman - Huddersfield Tulip Siddiq - LONDON - Hampstead Angela Smith - Penistone Catherine West - LONDON - Hornsey/Wood Green Daniel Zeichner - Cambridge
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
This is all very confusing. The anti-Brexit rebels are the ones who respect the government's desire not to publish a plan, whereas the true believers are the ones who want to pile on the pressure?
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Here is the list of LD MP's who voted for the Brexit motion:
Tom Brake Norman Lamb Greg Mulholland John Pugh
Against the Brexit motion:
Alistair Carmichael Nick Clegg Tim Farron Sarah Olney Mark Williams
Ironically if the LD hadn't won the Richmond by-election they would have been divided 4-4.
Pugh & Williams voting against constituency ?
Mark Williams' seat Ceredigion voted Remain, Sefton did vote Remain but by just 51.9% , the LD split almost entirely reflects the votes of their constituents
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
In Witney the raw Labour vote was 60% of their GE vote, in-line with turnout, so they were not squeezed at all. In Richmond it was only 20%. I would expect Sleaford to be more representative of the former than the latter. For that reason the Labour vote seems low to me.
One factor that makes this hard to call is just how low turnout will be on a cold winter's day, in an extremely safe Conservative seat.
There have been no shortage of turnouts below 30%; could we see 25%? (Manchester Central was just 18.2% in 2012, but I cannot imagine we'll be anywhere near that low.)
If you look at recent by-elections a pattern emerges; safe labour seats see appalling turnouts e.g. Manchester Central. Safe Tory seats however maintain decent turnouts (they also tend to have relatively high turnout at GEs). Safe Tory seats have tended to get roughly about 50%.
Kensington was 30%, but your overall point is, I'm sure, correct.
Kensington's not a safe seat. From memory Vicky's majority is less than 6,000
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
I want the welfare state to survive, but to do so it needs to be affordable. People on average incomes should not be dependent on taxpayers, it is not sustainable for only 30% of Britons to be net payers.
Labour coming 4th would be quite something. It would mean they are dwindling into insignificance across the entirety of south, east and south west England, and the Midlands (absent London and Brum)
And also utterly irrelevant in Scotland.
Labour is staring at electoral death.
Labour's problem is affluent centre left and liberal Remainers are switching back to the LDs and the white working class are increasingly switching to UKIP over immigration and the middle class voters who voted for Blair and for Cameron are sticking with May. That leaves them with just ethnic minorities and the hard and traditional left, mainly in the inner cities, they will likely come 4th on Thursday in Sleaford after coming 3rd in Richmond Park and the County Council elections next year could see Corbyn lose seats even Ed Miliband won in 2013
Except that the Liberal Democrats still aren't improving in the national poll: by-elections and general elections remain clean different things. And, although shrunken, there's little sign of further contraction in Labour's voter coalition. IIRC they've not even been down as low as 25% in any of the GB-
I remain concerned that Labour may shamble on for a very long time as a zombie opposition - too weak to take down the Tories at a general election, but simultaneously too strong in their remaining heartlands to allow an alternative to rise up and take their place.
The LDs and UKIP are unlikely to overtake Labour for second but the latest yougov has both up on their 2015 share of the vote and Labour down
The mean of all polls taken since May became PM effectively shows no change relative to the 2015 GE, other than an increase in the Tory vote share and a decrease in the Labour one. The other parties have remained more or less static.
Yes but after May's conference speech the LD vote is up a little and after Nuttall's election and the emergence of the potential continuation of contributions to the EU the UKIP total is also up. If May does the Brexit deal I expect her to, ie free movement restricted by a job offer, some continued budget contributions and some limited single market access, while Corbyn still leads Labour I would expect both the LDs and UKIP to be up at the next election boosted by ultra Remainers and Leavers respectively and the Labour and Tory voteshares to be down
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
What he should not have done was to make big set-piece speeches saying he was prepared to campaign for leave.
And good evening, everyone.
If Cameron had campaigned for Leave - and he was as hated and mistrusted as much as everyone was saying on the previous thread - then surely Remain would have won.
You are kidding, right? He'd have won it by a landslide.
Stark Dawning has been driven Stark Raving Mad by Brexit.
If Cameron had come out for Brexit, Leave would have won by 60/40 or more.
Thbably would have won greater concessions on benefits, and would therefore have won his referendum.
The deal was fine; it addressed much that needed to be addressed, but was admittedly weak on immigration.
Perhaps also, it was all he was going to get? We seem to have had the EU27 pretty much speaking with one voice telling us what to expect. Now, of course this I'm sure is so much bluster and tactics, but what if...we weren't going to get a better deal then, and we might not get a great deal now?
The deal was shit. And he knew it was shit. And his Cabinet knew it was shit because they received it (according to the Times) in total stony silence.
The deal was when the referendum was lost.
The deal was shit because Cameron had already told his European colleagues that he would win the vote whatever, and because he had told the world he would always campaign for REMAIN, whatever the circumstances. Understandably, in that situation, dealing with a political moron like Cameron, the Europeans decided to give him fuck all as he had loudly promised to campaign for them even if he got fuck all.
On top of that, Cameron promised beforehand in the Bloomberg speech that he'd get a whole lot more than fuck all, and when he actually came back with the predictable fuck all, he tried to tell us he'd got the Deal of the Century, and when we all laughed in despair and said he had fuck all, he shut the fuck up and never mentioned his Deal again, throughout the campaign.
Draw your own conclusions.
It wasn shit.
Nah, it was shit.
It was not shit.
Yes it was shit. There wasn't even any guaranteed means of implementing its (albeit shit) provisions. Stop trying to polish a turd; you're embarrassing yourself.
The top rated comment on the Daily Mail's article about tonight's Brexit vote must speak for the nation:
Everything that I want from Brexit still stands, shorter waiting times at hospitals and doctors, getting your children into the School of choice, making our own laws and to getting back our country. Please get us out now.
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
I want the welfare state to survive, but to do so it needs to be affordable. People on average incomes should not be dependent on taxpayers, it is not sustainable for only 30% of Britons to be net payers.
Agreed. Higher wages, lower tax and higher productivity. That needs to be the mantra of the government.
Comments
David Cameron tried that back in February, look where it got him.
Of course there should be discussions with politicians of all sides in advance of the EU talks, I would suggest that the Privy Council is the appropriately private place for these talks, rather than shouting soundbites across the Commons or the media. The previous PM decided that no preparation was to be done for a Leave vote, everyone needs now to wait for that work to be done.
It's not being done to fit the daily news cycle for the next few months, it's being done to shape the future of the country.
Like I said below, I blame the EU more than Cameron. But he didn't help himself.
I genuinely don't know how Labour come back from this.
There must be room for a left or centre left party of government, but the topography of British politics - from Scotland to FPTP - makes the UK an almost uniquely hostile environment for such a force.
How do they simultaneously appeal to playwrights in Islington and plumbers in Sunderland, as they used to do? It cannot be done. And Scotland is lost, seemingly forever.
It's over for them, barring some incredible black swan (not unlikely in 2016)
If memory serves me aright, it used to be the case that the 'playwrights in Islington' supported Labour because they wanted to show their support for 'plumbers in Sunderland'.
If that was the case way back when, what happened to change the reason the 'playwrights' support Labour?
We see the end result in the 'plumbers' voting Leave and the 'playwrights' voting Remain: a clear divergence of interests now.
immigration, immigration, immigration,
Mass immigration makes life better for playwrights in Islington (cheaper plumbers!), it makes life harder for plumbers in Sunderland (too many cheap plumbers).
Until Labour square the immigration circle, they are screwed. Right now they are ideologically incapable of doing this.
It is possible to see the Lib Dems reviving as the big Remain party to 15%, Labour becoming the Corbynite left on 20-25%, UKIP being ultra-Brexit on 5-10%, and the Tories governing in total perpetuity as the sane option for the other 40%.
What happens when May starts to lose her popularity (remember the Brown bounce), the Brexit negotiations fail to satisfy the loons, we go into a recession either Brexit induced or otherwise, ( Brexit will be blamed anyway) and labour somehow get a new leader whilst the Lib Dems harvest the increasingly voluble Remain/return faction?
Answer...1997 revisited, only on steroids. Not inconceivable and just as likely as the scenario you suggest.The right of the Tories will be tolerated all the time they appear (considerably) more competent than the opposition but will never be liked by most.
One would imagine 18 years without a majority might have drummed into the dinosaur like skulls of Bone, Cash, IDS et al that having a leader capable of winning was a significant advantage to their party.
Nick Spencer (and many, many others of the liberal media) are completely losing it. Even the US 'comedy' shows are wall to wall with Trump Is Dangerous and Racist, completely unwatchable except as a parody of themselves.
MPs backed Labour's motion, saying the government should publish a plan and it was "Parliament's responsibility to properly scrutinise the government" over Brexit, by 448 votes to 75 - a margin of 373.
This followed another vote over the government's amendment to the motion, which added the proviso that its timetable for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, getting formal talks with the EU under way, should be respected.
MPs backed this by 461 votes to 89 - a margin of 372.
If that is what he needed to say then we were always destined to go out, regardless of what he came back with.
Stopping such and such EU immigration completely is just not consistent with being a member of the EU. And that's fine for both sides. We are seeing that now with the noises about the indivisible four freedoms.
But that is nothing to do with the deal.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/next-labour-pm-celebrates-10th-birthday-2015070399851
More seriously, I think the concern of Labour being too strong to be replaced, not strong enough to challenge, is a real one, particularly if Corbyn is defeated but not destroyed in 2020.
Most of the other by elections were big events compared to this.
We all secretly know this is economically illiterate bollocks which is why the Leave campaign never ever featured cheaper plumbing selecting instead Brown, Muslim Turks as it's foreigner of choice.
Clearly most voters feel immigration is far too high for far too long. But Leave never made that case honestly. In a curious way it was as adverse to talking about immigration as the liberal left was. It never said plumbing would get more expensive. It blamed western wide declines in all wages on the EU. It wanted a points based system on immigration which would be mean more plumbers. It wanted " control " over immigration suggesting plumbers were OK on a work permit but not if they came as European Citizens. They told " Commonwealth " communities they'd get more visas for relatives if we took less plumbers but really...
At no point did Leave ever say " We can allay your cultural unease about this ahistoral level of immigrantion and support wages for the bottom 10% of earners because frankly those are the only folk who's wages are depressed by immigration. "
Because that strategy would would never have got them to 52%.
Perhaps Dave, like @Richard_Tyndall, didn't care that much about immigration.
There was a distinct risk that - after we'd voted Remain - the ECJ would have torn the deal to pieces.
It's not at all likely that the referendum would have been re-run, had they done so.
It is perfectly possible to come up with such a party.
The major issue is that, unlike the party of Atlee & Co. the metropolitan "progressive" types strongly dislike "Britishness".
Try imagine explaining the Bevan that jobs in the UK *shouldn't* be prioritised for British workers....
In many ways, the Labour voters in the North & in Scotland didn't leave the Labour party. The Labour Party left them.
I disagree, this is an ultra safe Tory seat with other parties struggling to get to the teens.
It would only tell us if the Tories are still leaking votes to UKIP.
It offered no serious measures to deal with the inflow of people nor real protections against further EU changes.
Trust had broken down with not just the EU, but also with UK politicians.What good is a Cameron veto or a Major opt out when it's handed over to a Corbyn or Blair?
The only way was out. Cameron had to convince them that the whole project and direction was wrong.
I would be interested to see how many of the 48% voted the way they did because they trusted Cameron and Osborne's mistaken prophesies of imminent economic doom.
Do we really still take into account opinion polls ?
I think based on Westminster and Local by-elections the Tories and UKIP are lower and the LD are higher than the polls say.
For Labour it's a mixed picture so probably not much difference since 2015.
Once that conclusion had been reached I had to decide whether the path that the EU was on was one I wanted my country to follow. It's not. If the possibility of future reform had been held out as an amorphous possibility I might have gone the other way. But Cameron tried and Cameron failed. As I think he was the brightest and most capable PM that we have had since at least Maggie the conclusion is obvious. No one was going to get an EU that we would want to live in. We needed to leave. All that has happened since has simply confirmed that conclusion.
That's probably a definition of a bad deal, getting a fig leaf on one issue and nothing in all the others and still pretend it was a giant success.
David Cameron himself stopped campaigning on the deal within a week, it was that bad.
That's why Trump won, his policies where so much more popular than Hillary's that it overcame his negatives.
Even the Joker found that out, throwing money and jobs to people is popular:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWx_sv8MH6Q
Unless you're one of the people who, comically, think a deal agreed by 28 EU heads of state would be struck down by the ECJ. And we would have said "fine".
There were a few comments the other day about the Russians having another plane crashed. Sadly today the US lost another F18 Hornet in the sea off Japan.
It's the ninth Hornet by all operators to crash in six months:
https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/07/yet-another-u-s-fa-18-has-just-crashed-in-japan-its-the-9th-legacy-hornet-lost-in-6-months-and-the-crash-rate-is-alarming/
Again, more about disrespect for the UK than immigration, at least people who were swung by the poor deal.
Rushanara Ali: Graham Allen; Ben Bradshaw; Ann Coffey; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Jim Dowd; Louise Ellman; Chris Evans; Paul Farrelly; Mike Gapes; Helen Hayes; Meg Hillier; Peter Kyle; David Lammy; Chris Leslie; Ian Murray; Barry Sheerman; Tulip Siddiq; Angela Smith; Catherine West; and Daniel Zeichner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkihKpnx5yM
Shame really. It really was a good idea "Europe", but they screwed it up by being so convinced of the rectitude of the "Project" they forgot to convince enough of us or even think convincing was in any way needed.
I have therefore not regretted my vote for a second. Separation will not be the path of least resistance but I'm convinced it's the right one for us. Let's hope we and they can remain good friends once the bun fight of the process of leaving is over.
No no, it really was shit and persuaded no undecideds who would not otherwise have backed remain to go remain.
I've yet to meet anyone whose vote was swayed to remain by the deal(*)
Except Nabavi maybe
*I'd have backed remain Deal or No Deal
A genuine question. Would be fascinated to know...
Shows every vote by name or party
I loathe the EU as much as you seem to love it. One day I do hope you'll leave for Brussels and not look back, I think you'll be happier there.
They've bought into Brexit and tonight was the night they signed in blood.
The constituencies of those are
Bethnal Green
Nottingham North
Exeter
Stockport
Bermondsey
Walthamstow
Swansea West
Lewisham West
Liverpool Riverside
Islwyn
Newcastle under Lyme
Ilford South
Dulwich
Hackney South
Hove
Tottenham
Nottingham East
Edinburgh South
Huddersfield
Hampstead
Stockbridge and Penistone
Hornsey
Cambridge
Tom Brake
Norman Lamb
Greg Mulholland
John Pugh
Against the Brexit motion:
Alistair Carmichael
Nick Clegg
Tim Farron
Sarah Olney
Mark Williams
Ironically if the LD hadn't won the Richmond by-election they would have been divided 4-4.
As an aside, Cameron's foolhardiness doesn't let the Leave promoters off the hook. They were variously too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge what Cameron did realise: that their Leave campaign was the damaging one.
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/806594333206073350
Cameron and "The Deal" may go down in history like "let them eat cake" and the shot that started WW1.
That moment when history pivoted. Brexit began. Trump was elected. And the EU began to unravel..?
In 100 years time, Cameron may be the only PM from our time that people remember...
Graham Allen - Nottingham N
Ben Bradshaw - Exeter
Ann Coffey - Stockport
Neil Coyle - LONDON - Bermondsey
Stella Creasy - LONDON - Walthamstow
Geraint Davies - Swansea W
Jim Dowd - LONDON - Lewisham
Louise Ellman - Liverpool Riverside
Chris Evans - Islwyn
Paul Farrelly - Newcastle Under Lyme
Mike Gapes - LONDON - Ilford S
Helen Hayes - LONDON - Dulwich
Meg Hillier - LONDON - Hackney S
Peter Kyle; - Hove (London by the sea)
David Lammy - LONDON - Tottenham
Chris Leslie - Nottingham E
Ian Murray - Edinburgh S
Barry Sheerman - Huddersfield
Tulip Siddiq - LONDON - Hampstead
Angela Smith - Penistone
Catherine West - LONDON - Hornsey/Wood Green
Daniel Zeichner - Cambridge
thanks @Scott_P
i.e. the electorate.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Everything that I want from Brexit still stands, shorter waiting times at hospitals and doctors, getting your children into the School of choice, making our own laws and to getting back our country. Please get us out now.