* Majorities want immigration rules tightened, and this applies to every regional subset including London (61%) and Scotland (60%.)
* Of those surveyed, a total of 69% wanted the rules tightened, 16% left as they are, and only 6% wanted looser regulation (less than the 8% of DKs.) This survey at least suggests that Theresa May is onto something with her emphasis on immigration - and, presumably, she wants the Conservatives to get a grip before Ukip (or something nastier) comes along and does it for them.
* There are also absolute majorities for cutting immigration amongst all four main party affiliations, and all age groups except the 18-24s (and even amongst them 48% wanted tighter controls.)
* The public were also asked about Labour's position on the issue, and voters were as baffled as the party leadership itself appears to be confused. 31% thought Labour wanted more immigration, 19% thought they wanted things left as they are, 13% thought they wanted the rules tightened, and 38% had no idea what Labour's position was at all.
Personally, I was surprised only that the 31% figure wasn't even higher than it actually was...
Let us not forget that item 4 (of 6) on the Edstone was "Controls on Immigration".
As far as Merkel's concerned, we're on our own. Trump is a gift to centrist European politics as Anti-Americanism will make a comeback.
"I will continue to work to ensure that the 27 member states work together effectively and, above all, in a forward-looking way," she said, adding that Trump's positions had "been known for a while."
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
.... and yet the Council and By-election results don't seem to back up your assertions.
Local authority elections can only tell you so much. They have comparatively low turnouts, which can skew results towards the most committed voters and/or good GOTV operations; are commonly influenced by peculiar local circumstances; are subject (in normal times at least) to a significant element of protest against the sitting Government which may not always manifest fully at a general election; and (most importantly) people aren't choosing the next Government of the country when they vote in them.
The reason why the Liberal Democrats are having quite a lot of very strong by-election performances, and yet remain somewhere around the 10% mark in so many of these polls, isn't because the polling is wrong. It is because the polling and the by-elections are asking different questions.
If council by-elections were a reliable guide to how things should shape up at Westminster, then the Local Ratepayers ought to be doing a great deal better than their current dismal total of zero MPs.
Back in the 60’s, in the First, or Grimond Liberal Revival I recall arguing that people likely to vote Liberal (as it was then) would do so in council elections, by- or otherwise, because it was ‘exciting’ but there was more lethargy towards voting among those likely to vote Tory or Labour, And, when the ’64 election arrived, so it proved.
Talking of China, which we weren't, everyone knows I am bullish on its prospects, and have been so for ten years on this site, predicting its rise to power and preeminence when others scoffed.
(snipped)
China will still outstrip America in sheer size, but there are the seeds of great discontent here.
(visual snipped)
Quite worryingly spectacular. I'd heard first-hand stories of the London smogs pre-the clean air act, but they couldn't have been this bad could they?
As an aside, another problem facing China is the massive building bubble, and the fact that large parts of their infrastructure are not, to be polite, built to code.
The visibility may have been as bad/worse, but were the pollutants as harmful?
That's a really good question. I assume the London smog would mainly have been coal smoke, from power stations, steam trains and local houses. But Beijing's? Traffic and modern factory processes?
I'd hazard a guess that London's smog was 'healthier' (relatively) than Beijing's. But that's just a plain guess.
"A convincing win for Remain, and the Brexiteers "accept the settled will of the British people" and STFU.
It won't happen, but it's technically possible."
Alastair Meeks?
The "settled will of the British people" has Alastair's trademark pomposity, but I don't recall him ever using a tawdry 'STFU', he's polite even when petulant. RIchard Nabavi? Or, based on his previous meanderings over the European landscape, Seant .
I hope we get the answer either way. I'm sticking to Alistair Meeks as my guess.
It wasn't Alastair... although he did say this!!
"It was apparent before the outset of the campaign that Leave would be the most atrocious losers if they lost. They would conclude that the public got it wrong and they were cheated. The idea that they might have put a hopelessly incoherent case and frankly appeared a bit mad would not occur to them. So they will carry on with a guerrilla war."
I'm sure we all have a back catalogue of posts wed be embarrassed about...
I'm reminded of a Nietzsche quote:
"I have done that" says my memory. "I cannot have done that" says my pride, and remains adamant. At last - - memory yields.
If you can read though German the comments from readers are interesting. A range of views from to hell with the Brits through, to the Brits are dead right to leave. Quite balanced really.
Talking of China, which we weren't, everyone knows I am bullish on its prospects, and have been so for ten years on this site, predicting its rise to power and preeminence when others scoffed.
A five year reduction in life expectancy? People trapped in their apartments?
China will still outstrip America in sheer size, but there are the seeds of great discontent here.
It is just horrible in China. I was in Shanghai in December and only saw the sky once in five days - the rest of the time the smog was too thick. It gets into your lungs and stings your skin. When you fly out you only get above it at around 10,000 feet and then it is there spreading out across the country for hundreds of miles inland. It's often the same now in Hong Kong as a result of the factories in Shenzhen, Guangdong etc.
Those footballers going out there for all that money are going to risk serious problems. Running around in what is essentially poison for two hours at a time is dangerous.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
Talking of China, which we weren't, everyone knows I am bullish on its prospects, and have been so for ten years on this site, predicting its rise to power and preeminence when others scoffed.
(snipped)
China will still outstrip America in sheer size, but there are the seeds of great discontent here.
(visual snipped)
Quite worryingly spectacular. I'd heard first-hand stories of the London smogs pre-the clean air act, but they couldn't have been this bad could they?
As an aside, another problem facing China is the massive building bubble, and the fact that large parts of their infrastructure are not, to be polite, built to code.
The visibility may have been as bad/worse, but were the pollutants as harmful?
That's a really good question. I assume the London smog would mainly have been coal smoke, from power stations, steam trains and local houses. But Beijing's? Traffic and modern factory processes?
I'd hazard a guess that London's smog was 'healthier' (relatively) than Beijing's. But that's just a plain guess.
By all accounts the peasoupers were pretty nasty. But their toxicity was probably masked a bit by the fact that most people smoked in the 50s. I dare say the same is true in China now.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
He's had a rapprochement with George though.
Still proud of the piece I did in Feb 2016 where I said Gove was set to play the role of Brutus to Dave's Caesar.
.... and yet the Council and By-election results don't seem to back up your assertions.
Local authority elections can only tell you so much. They have comparatively low turnouts, which can skew results towards the most committed voters and/or good GOTV operations; are commonly influenced by peculiar local circumstances; are subject (in normal times at least) to a significant element of protest against the sitting Government which may not always manifest fully at a general election; and (most importantly) people aren't choosing the next Government of the country when they vote in them.
The reason why the Liberal Democrats are having quite a lot of very strong by-election performances, and yet remain somewhere around the 10% mark in so many of these polls, isn't because the polling is wrong. It is because the polling and the by-elections are asking different questions.
If council by-elections were a reliable guide to how things should shape up at Westminster, then the Local Ratepayers ought to be doing a great deal better than their current dismal total of zero MPs.
I did say Council elections and By-Elections, there have been a few for Westminster. But you're free to ignore these indications if you like. I don't understand your Local Ratepayer argument, by definition those guys don't usually stand for Parliament.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
TSE and me just for starters - it's quality that matters in mateship.
.... and yet the Council and By-election results don't seem to back up your assertions.
Local authority elections can only tell you so much. They have comparatively low turnouts, which can skew results towards the most committed voters and/or good GOTV operations; are commonly influenced by peculiar local circumstances; are subject (in normal times at least) to a significant element of protest against the sitting Government which may not always manifest fully at a general election; and (most importantly) people aren't choosing the next Government of the country when they vote in them.
The reason why the Liberal Democrats are having quite a lot of very strong by-election performances, and yet remain somewhere around the 10% mark in so many of these polls, isn't because the polling is wrong. It is because the polling and the by-elections are asking different questions.
If council by-elections were a reliable guide to how things should shape up at Westminster, then the Local Ratepayers ought to be doing a great deal better than their current dismal total of zero MPs.
Back in the 60’s, in the First, or Grimond Liberal Revival I recall arguing that people likely to vote Liberal (as it was then) would do so in council elections, by- or otherwise, because it was ‘exciting’ but there was more lethargy towards voting among those likely to vote Tory or Labour, And, when the ’64 election arrived, so it proved.
I'm not so sure it's even excitement, at least not this time around. Crudely put, committed activists + very low turnout + refuse collection election = more Lib Dem councillors.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Arent you in the LDs these days ?
Hell no, I'll be a Tory member for 20 years this May.
As long as people like Ken Clarke, George Osborne, David Cameron, and JohnO are in the Tory party, then I'll still be there.
I joined in May 1997, trust me it wasn't for the the glory.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
TSE and me just for starters - it's quality that matters in mateship.
come off it John, Dave couldnt keep up with the alcohol intake for starters
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
If course, the US trade deal will become a complete non-issue should they successfully pass the Border Corporate Tax Adjustment.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Arent you in the LDs these days ?
Hell no, I'll be a Tory member for 20 years this May.
As long as people like Ken Clarke, George Osborne, David Cameron, and JohnO are in the Tory party, then I'll still be there.
I joined in May 1997, trust me it wasn't for the the glory.
That was the same month that I joined. Also the same time that I met PB's very own Sean F
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Arent you in the LDs these days ?
Hell no, I'll be a Tory member for 20 years this May.
As long as people like Ken Clarke, George Osborne, David Cameron, and JohnO are in the Tory party, then I'll still be there.
I joined in May 1997, trust me it wasn't for the the glory.
Talking of China, which we weren't, everyone knows I am bullish on its prospects, and have been so for ten years on this site, predicting its rise to power and preeminence when others scoffed.
A five year reduction in life expectancy? People trapped in their apartments?
China will still outstrip America in sheer size, but there are the seeds of great discontent here.
It is just horrible in China. I was in Shanghai in December and only saw the sky once in five days - the rest of the time the smog was too thick. It gets into your lungs and stings your skin. When you fly out you only get above it at around 10,000 feet and then it is there spreading out across the country for hundreds of miles inland. It's often the same now in Hong Kong as a result of the factories in Shenzhen, Guangdong etc.
Those footballers going out there for all that money are going to risk serious problems. Running around in what is essentially poison for two hours at a time is dangerous.
It should be noted that Japan had similar problems when it industrialised rapidly, in the 50s and 60s.
China will eventually get a grip on this, but without democratic pressures to do anything, they might act very slowly - and if they act too slowly they risk civil unrest.
They are aware of it and are investing heavily in Cleantech and alternative energy - but so much is left to enforcement at local level and corruption is endemic. There will undoubtedly be a lot of civil unrest. The generations that remembered the times of starvation and real poverty are beginning to die off now. Because of what they knew they always gave the government plenty of leeway. But most of those who are under 50 have only ever really known relative prosperity. They demand a lot more in all areas, from housing, through health, to pay and conditions and the environment.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Spot on. Any trade deal with the US will essentially be them dictating terms to us. And they will not be pretty.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Arent you in the LDs these days ?
Hell no, I'll be a Tory member for 20 years this May.
As long as people like Ken Clarke, George Osborne, David Cameron, and JohnO are in the Tory party, then I'll still be there.
I joined in May 1997, trust me it wasn't for the the glory.
That was the same month that I joined. Also the same time that I met PB's very own Sean F
I joined after our shellacking from Mr Blair, it was a weird time, even my very own seat, the safe Tory seat of Sheffield Hallam went Yellow, was a tense time, I was doing my A levels at the time.
Is why I don't like May/June elections, they clash with exam time.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
Nearly, 19 years between the events of episode III and IV.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
It might be based on common law, but I don't accept the US justice system is as fair or as equitable as our own.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
He's had a rapprochement with George though.
Still proud of the piece I did in Feb 2016 where I said Gove was set to play the role of Brutus to Dave's Caesar.
Gove for me is the hero of 2016. As Cummings pointed out he was absolutely crucial for the referendum victory and just as importantly he recognised what a disaster Boris would be as PM and made the sacrifice to ensure that did not happen.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
If course, the US trade deal will become a complete non-issue should they successfully pass the Border Corporate Tax Adjustment.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
It might be based on common law, but I don't accept the US justice system is as fair or as equitable as our own.
The whole American criminal justice system is a disgrace, especially on those fronts.
I hope it never happens, but if I was wrongly charged with a crime, I know which country I would have the better chance of being helped to prove my innocence, and it ain't America.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
Nearly, 19 years between the events of episode III and IV.
Without wishing to extend the simile too far, the Jedi of films I - III are complacent, out of touch and out of their depth....
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
It might be based on common law, but I don't accept the US justice system is as fair or as equitable as our own.
The whole American criminal justice system is a disgrace, especially on those fronts.
I hope it never happens, but if I was wrongly charged with a crime, I know which country I would have the better chance of being helped to prove my innocence, and it ain't America.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
He's had a rapprochement with George though.
Still proud of the piece I did in Feb 2016 where I said Gove was set to play the role of Brutus to Dave's Caesar.
Gove for me is the hero of 2016. As Cummings pointed out he was absolutely crucial for the referendum victory and just as importantly he recognised what a disaster Boris would be as PM and made the sacrifice to ensure that did not happen.
One of the reasons Gove was so effective for Leave was that voters knew he was so close to Cameron, for him to go against his friend, it gave him credibility.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
He's had a rapprochement with George though.
Still proud of the piece I did in Feb 2016 where I said Gove was set to play the role of Brutus to Dave's Caesar.
Gove for me is the hero of 2016. As Cummings pointed out he was absolutely crucial for the referendum victory and just as importantly he recognised what a disaster Boris would be as PM and made the sacrifice to ensure that did not happen.
I think Gove has a light side and a dark side.
I remain a huge fan of his education reforms, liked his justice reforms, and thought he was a hero during the Leave campaign. Right up until just after the result.
But, he could also be impossible, dogmatic, unreliable and had a bit of a tin ear for how his words and actions would be received. I don't think he's Machiavellian, or sinister like Richard Nixon, but clearly, sometimes, he just can't help himself.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
Nearly, 19 years between the events of episode III and IV.
Without wishing to extend the simile too far, the Jedi of films I - III are complacent, out of touch and out of their depth....
I'm finally publishing my Cameron legacy piece this weekend.
Has taken me seven months to finally come to terms with Cameron's resignation, forget the EU referendum result, the worst thing to happen on June 24th was Dave resigning.
.... and yet the Council and By-election results don't seem to back up your assertions.
Local authority elections can only tell you so much. They have comparatively low turnouts, which can skew results towards the most committed voters and/or good GOTV operations; are commonly influenced by peculiar local circumstances; are subject (in normal times at least) to a significant element of protest against the sitting Government which may not always manifest fully at a general election; and (most importantly) people aren't choosing the next Government of the country when they vote in them.
The reason why the Liberal Democrats are having quite a lot of very strong by-election performances, and yet remain somewhere around the 10% mark in so many of these polls, isn't because the polling is wrong. It is because the polling and the by-elections are asking different questions.
If council by-elections were a reliable guide to how things should shape up at Westminster, then the Local Ratepayers ought to be doing a great deal better than their current dismal total of zero MPs.
I did say Council elections and By-Elections, there have been a few for Westminster. But you're free to ignore these indications if you like. I don't understand your Local Ratepayer argument, by definition those guys don't usually stand for Parliament.
Notwithstanding the fact that the total number of Westminster by-elections has been too small to constitute a significant sample, they are subject to the same set of peculiarities as the locals (by-election or otherwise.) This is not to say that a performance like that of the Liberal Democrats is weak, or is entirely without meaning - it's just that we have to take it for what it is. The huge Lib Dem vote and the pathetic Labour vote in the seat can be read as some evidence for relative movements in the popularity of those parties, but we have also have to bear in mind that (a) the seat was unusual (circumstances of election, no official Tory candidate, massive Remain vote) and (b) that even if it wasn't, scaling up one result, or even a small handful of them, to the nationwide scale has its perils.
The latter point is merely a re-emphasis of the fact that not all elections are like, and voting patterns can vary enormously. If this were untrue then Parliament might have rather more independent/minor party representation than is in fact the case.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
It might be based on common law, but I don't accept the US justice system is as fair or as equitable as our own.
The whole American criminal justice system is a disgrace, especially on those fronts.
I hope it never happens, but if I was wrongly charged with a crime, I know which country I would have the better chance of being helped to prove my innocence, and it ain't America.
The American justice system is quite like gambling sometimes: can I, as a foreigner, count on only an evens chance for a jury to acquit me, risking 30 years in an awful jail if I'm wrong, or is it better to admit guilt, pay the fine and take 3 years now, with the certainty I'm free after?
Two awful options.
How many innocents who can't afford the right lawyer or fines go to jail there?
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
Nearly, 19 years between the events of episode III and IV.
Without wishing to extend the simile too far, the Jedi of films I - III are complacent, out of touch and out of their depth....
I'm finally publishing my Cameron legacy piece this weekend.
Has taken me seven months to finally come to terms with Cameron's resignation, forget the EU referendum result, the worst thing to happen on June 24th was Dave resigning.
I remember Blair being omnipotent, disagreeing with the vast majority of what he did, seeing Britain change before my eyes, and thinking the Conservatives would never win again.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
Nearly, 19 years between the events of episode III and IV.
Without wishing to extend the simile too far, the Jedi of films I - III are complacent, out of touch and out of their depth....
I'm finally publishing my Cameron legacy piece this weekend.
Has taken me seven months to finally come to terms with Cameron's resignation, forget the EU referendum result, the worst thing to happen on June 24th was Dave resigning.
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
Nearly, 19 years between the events of episode III and IV.
Without wishing to extend the simile too far, the Jedi of films I - III are complacent, out of touch and out of their depth....
I'm finally publishing my Cameron legacy piece this weekend.
Has taken me seven months to finally come to terms with Cameron's resignation, forget the EU referendum result, the worst thing to happen on June 24th was Dave resigning.
look on the bright side, it scuppered Osborne
You're going to love my piece then.
will I have to get my George voodoo doll out again and stick pins in it ?
@paulwaugh: No10 spkswomn: "I'm not aware that the Prime Minister has spoken to Michael Gove [since his Trump meeting]". Relations still in deep freeze.
I suppose Gove' still too close to Cameron
Nope, he's still in the doghouse big time with Dave and particularly Sam.
It's Mike no mates...
he and Dave ought to get together, Dave has no mates either
The Cameroons (and Osbornites) haven't gone away you know.
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
Weren't there two decades between episodes III and IV?
Nearly, 19 years between the events of episode III and IV.
Without wishing to extend the simile too far, the Jedi of films I - III are complacent, out of touch and out of their depth....
I'm finally publishing my Cameron legacy piece this weekend.
Has taken me seven months to finally come to terms with Cameron's resignation, forget the EU referendum result, the worst thing to happen on June 24th was Dave resigning.
look on the bright side, it scuppered Osborne
You're going to love my piece then.
will I have to get my George voodoo doll out again and stick pins in it ?
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
And Cameron promised to get a good deal for Britain. Things change, if Cameron is so precious about these things he really shouldn't have gone into politics.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
The UK/US extradition treaty and the EAW are two things I'd happily get rid of.
Extradition should only be granted where:-
1. The requesting state can make a prima facie case that the individual may have committed a criminal offence, with the standards to be applied those of English criminal law. 2. The offence in question is one which is an offence in the UK. 3. There is no strong nexus with the UK. So if the majority of witnesses/evidence are based in the UK the matter ought to be prosecuted in the UK. 4. There have to be certain minimum standards of process so that the UK citizen is not unfairly prejudiced e.g. I would - and I realize I'm a purist on this - be wary of extraditing people to countries where there is no concept of habeas corpus or where people can be locked up long periods without a trial and with no effective means of defending themselves.
Administrative convenience and the polite fiction that legal systems of, let us say, countries which have recently been Communist are equivalent to the British criminal system (trial by jury / burden of proof etc) should not override the rights of British citizens.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
According to 'All Out War', it was Cameron sacking Gove that first weakened the chains of loyalty. I think these things are always incredibly complex, and there probably isn't a 'ground truth' to be had.
I don't think so, somehow. In the same way that Gove will never be able to escape the taint of his double betrayal of Cameron then Johnson, Osborne will never be able to entirely rid himself of the odium of the threatened punishment Budget. Too much of the face beneath the mask has been revealed; he'll never be trusted with so much public authority again, I fear.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
It came down to everyone knowing were Cameron to lose the referendum he would have to resign as Prime Minister.
They've known each other for over 30 years, some things hurt more when it done by someone close to you.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
It came down to everyone knowing were Cameron to lose the referendum he would have to resign as Prime Minister.
They've known each other for over 30 years, some things hurt more when it done by someone close to you.
then he shouldnt have called it or he should have called it later
history will judge the EUref as a huge mistake by a sitting PM
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
It came down to everyone knowing were Cameron to lose the referendum he would have to resign as Prime Minister.
They've known each other for over 30 years, some things hurt more when it done by someone close to you.
Sounds as though Mr Cameron painted himself into a corner. Puts his friends into an impossible position.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
I would suggest the betrayal was entirely by Cameron in the way he fought the supposed phony war leading up.to the official campaign. He list any right to be treated fairly after that. He used and abused his friendship with many Leave lining Tories and he deserved everything he got.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
According to 'All Out War', it was Cameron sacking Gove that first weakened the chains of loyalty. I think these things are always incredibly complex, and there probably isn't a 'ground truth' to be had.
Mrs Gove didn't take that well, her husband did.
Interesting that Mrs Gove was so prominent in the Boris betrayal
Osborne will never be able to entirely rid himself of the odium of the threatened punishment Budget.
After Hammond has delivered it, Osborne will be swept back into power on an "I told you so" ticket
Even if Hammond were to do that (I can't see it, myself), Osborne doesn't get an "I told you so " moment - the purpose of the threat was just that, a naked attempt at political bullying. His motives are now suspect in a way that Hammond's wouldn't be, if you follow me.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
It came down to everyone knowing were Cameron to lose the referendum he would have to resign as Prime Minister.
They've known each other for over 30 years, some things hurt more when it done by someone close to you.
Cameron was meant to plan for the possibility of a Leave vote, trigger Article 50 on June the 24th, and stay on. I have very little sympathy for him after he lied through his teeth so much.
Having a different opinion isn't a betrayal, I have friends with radically different beliefs to mine, and who campaigned on the other side of this referendum, I didn't fall out with them over it.
"So, have the hard core of irreconcilable Remainers engaged in any self-analysis? Having got their short-term predictions so badly wrong, are they reassessing their long-term predictions? Not a bit of it. They are still issuing the same hysterical warnings, only now they apply them to the supposedly abominable prospect of a ‘hard Brexit’ – by which they mean leaving the EU without any special deal."
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" — Proverbs 26:11
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
It came down to everyone knowing were Cameron to lose the referendum he would have to resign as Prime Minister.
They've known each other for over 30 years, some things hurt more when it done by someone close to you.
Cameron was meant to plan for the possibility of a Leave vote, trigger Article 50 on June the 24th, and stay on. I have very little sympathy for him after he lied through his teeth so much.
Having a different opinion isn't a betrayal, I have friends with radically different beliefs to mine, and who campaigned on the other side of this referendum, I didn't fall out with them over it.
My memory is hazy, but wasn't the issue more that Gove hadn't told Cameron, or possibly even had given assures that he wouldn't campaign for Leave and the a week later did so?
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
The UK/US extradition treaty and the EAW are two things I'd happily get rid of.
Extradition should only be granted where:-
1. The requesting state can make a prima facie case that the individual may have committed a criminal offence, with the standards to be applied those of English criminal law. 2. The offence in question is one which is an offence in the UK. 3. There is no strong nexus with the UK. So if the majority of witnesses/evidence are based in the UK the matter ought to be prosecuted in the UK. 4. There have to be certain minimum standards of process so that the UK citizen is not unfairly prejudiced e.g. I would - and I realize I'm a purist on this - be wary of extraditing people to countries where there is no concept of habeas corpus or where people can be locked up long periods without a trial and with no effective means of defending themselves.
Administrative convenience and the polite fiction that legal systems of, let us say, countries which have recently been Communist are equivalent to the British criminal system (trial by jury / burden of proof etc) should not override the rights of British citizens.
That basically rules out the US doesn't it? I think they have people waiting years for a trial don't they?
I see that Alastair Meeks' point about the bitterness of the referendum winners is being fully vindicated here today.
Meanwhile, I've just noticed something in Phil Hammond's Die Welt interview which is important and hasn't got much attention:
We are going to serve the [Article 50] notice in spring. We would expect that we start with substantive negotiations with the EU before the summer. The treaty is clear that the negotiation of an exit agreement has to take account of the future relationship between the parties. To do that we have to talk about the future relationship. So we would expect that we would discuss the topics in parallel.
That flatly contradicts the EU position that the negotiations are separate. It's also entirely logical - how can you discuss exit terms if you don't have any idea what you are exiting to? - and, as he points out, is clear in Article 50:
the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union..
I can't see that aspect of the EU battleplan surviving contact with the enemy.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I'm afraid that says a lot about the Camerons.
I disagree, I know a bit more about it than most, and I don't wish to break personal confidences.
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
A silly promise to make really, why anyone should be expected to keep quiet about their feelings on a matter of such huge importance in order to not upset their friends is beyond me.
It came down to everyone knowing were Cameron to lose the referendum he would have to resign as Prime Minister.
They've known each other for over 30 years, some things hurt more when it done by someone close to you.
Cameron was meant to plan for the possibility of a Leave vote, trigger Article 50 on June the 24th, and stay on. I have very little sympathy for him after he lied through his teeth so much.
Having a different opinion isn't a betrayal, I have friends with radically different beliefs to mine, and who campaigned on the other side of this referendum, I didn't fall out with them over it.
My memory is hazy, but wasn't the issue more that Gove hadn't told Cameron, or possibly even had given assures that he wouldn't campaign for Leave and the a week later did so?
Maybe Cameron pressured him into a rash promise, and more fool Gove for making it. Nevertheless, effectively sitting out the most important political campaign in his life would have been madness.
In terms of conduct during the campaign, Gove was polite in putting his case forward. Cameron called Leavers Little Englanders.
I see that Alastair Meeks' point about the bitterness of the referendum winners is being fully vindicated here today.
Meanwhile, I've just noticed something in Phil Hammond's Die Welt interview which is important and hasn't got much attention:
We are going to serve the [Article 50] notice in spring. We would expect that we start with substantive negotiations with the EU before the summer. The treaty is clear that the negotiation of an exit agreement has to take account of the future relationship between the parties. To do that we have to talk about the future relationship. So we would expect that we would discuss the topics in parallel.
That flatly contradicts the EU position that the negotiations are separate. It's also entirely logical - how can you discuss exit terms if you don't have any idea what you are exiting to? - and, as he points out, is clear in Article 50:
the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union..
I can't see that aspect of the EU battleplan surviving contact with the enemy.
No no no!! He accurately predicted that the losers of the referendum would refuse to accept the result!!
I see that Alastair Meeks' point about the bitterness of the referendum winners is being fully vindicated here today.
Meanwhile, I've just noticed something in Phil Hammond's Die Welt interview which is important and hasn't got much attention:
We are going to serve the [Article 50] notice in spring. We would expect that we start with substantive negotiations with the EU before the summer. The treaty is clear that the negotiation of an exit agreement has to take account of the future relationship between the parties. To do that we have to talk about the future relationship. So we would expect that we would discuss the topics in parallel.
That flatly contradicts the EU position that the negotiations are separate. It's also entirely logical - how can you discuss exit terms if you don't have any idea what you are exiting to? - and, as he points out, is clear in Article 50:
the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union..
I can't see that aspect of the EU battleplan surviving contact with the enemy.
As previously trailed, if you do think of the exit agreement and our future relationship as entirely separate, it is difficult to know what goes in each.
Here's some heresy: aside from eliminating tariff and customs barriers on manufactured goods and agriculture, I'm yet to be convinced I want a trade deal with the US.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
Quite why the UK brought it into law before the US made it reciprocal was one of our more crazy decisions.
The UK/US extradition treaty and the EAW are two things I'd happily get rid of.
Extradition should only be granted where:-
1. The requesting state can make a prima facie case that the individual may have committed a criminal offence, with the standards to be applied those of English criminal law. 2. The offence in question is one which is an offence in the UK. 3. There is no strong nexus with the UK. So if the majority of witnesses/evidence are based in the UK the matter ought to be prosecuted in the UK. 4. There have to be certain minimum standards of process so that the UK citizen is not unfairly prejudiced e.g. I would - and I realize I'm a purist on this - be wary of extraditing people to countries where there is no concept of habeas corpus or where people can be locked up long periods without a trial and with no effective means of defending themselves.
Administrative convenience and the polite fiction that legal systems of, let us say, countries which have recently been Communist are equivalent to the British criminal system (trial by jury / burden of proof etc) should not override the rights of British citizens.
That basically rules out the US doesn't it? I think they have people waiting years for a trial don't they?
Looked it up. Apparently average wait for felons in New York is two years! 2/3 either not offered bail or can't afford it.
As previously trailed, if you do think of the exit agreement and our future relationship as entirely separate, it is difficult to know what goes in each.
Yes, I agree. Even something as basic as discussing how much we might pay for any residual liabilities on exit is entirely dependent on what the ongoing arrangment is going to be.
.... and yet the Council and By-election results don't seem to back up your assertions.
The reason why the Liberal Democrats are having quite a lot of very strong by-election performances, and yet remain somewhere around the 10% mark in so many of these polls, isn't because the polling is wrong. It is because the polling and the by-elections are asking different questions.
If council by-elections were a reliable guide to how things should shape up at Westminster, then the Local Ratepayers ought to be doing a great deal better than their current dismal total of zero MPs.
I did say Council elections and By-Elections, there have been a few for Westminster. But you're free to ignore these indications if you like. I don't understand your Local Ratepayer argument, by definition those guys don't usually stand for Parliament.
Notwithstanding the fact that the total number of Westminster by-elections has been too small to constitute a significant sample, they are subject to the same set of peculiarities as the locals (by-election or otherwise.) This is not to say that a performance like that of the Liberal Democrats is weak, or is entirely without meaning - it's just that we have to take it for what it is. The huge Lib Dem vote and the pathetic Labour vote in the seat can be read as some evidence for relative movements in the popularity of those parties, but we have also have to bear in mind that (a) the seat was unusual (circumstances of election, no official Tory candidate, massive Remain vote) and (b) that even if it wasn't, scaling up one result, or even a small handful of them, to the nationwide scale has its perils.
The latter point is merely a re-emphasis of the fact that not all elections are like, and voting patterns can vary enormously. If this were untrue then Parliament might have rather more independent/minor party representation than is in fact the case.
I don't really disagree much with what you're saying now, it was this:
"Much of the social conservative, traditional white working class vote is more amenable to being wooed by Ukip than the Lib Dems, and the more committed Lefties are still disinclined to trust them."
that seemed to be ignoring the indications that we are getting from Council elections, Westminster By-Elections and even opinion polls. To me these indicate that UKIP is declining and the LibDems are improving, nothing more than that. See also the YouGov yearly summary above.
"the right thing to do, the British thing to do, is to fight for a Great Britain inside a European Union and don't take the Nigel Farage Little England option."- David Cameron, June 2016
"the right thing to do, the British thing to do, is to fight for a Great Britain inside a European Union and don't take the Nigel Farage Little England option."- David Cameron, June 2016
People will dance on the head of a pin on here about it, but undoubtedly it was a terrible gaffe that gave the oppo a free hit in terms of mock anger
Comments
I'd hazard a guess that London's smog was 'healthier' (relatively) than Beijing's. But that's just a plain guess.
Ive been laughing my bollocks off at the Donald's latest pronouncements
Those footballers going out there for all that money are going to risk serious problems. Running around in what is essentially poison for two hours at a time is dangerous.
It's Mike no mates...
Still proud of the piece I did in Feb 2016 where I said Gove was set to play the role of Brutus to Dave's Caesar.
I don't understand your Local Ratepayer argument, by definition those guys don't usually stand for Parliament.
The image of a gold Challenger tank rolling over a red Mini Metro immediately springs to mind.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-rovio-games-idUKKBN1500HC?il=0
Snapchat sets up it's international office in London
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38567898
Add this to Facebook and Google expansions and the future looks quite rosy.
Removing non-tariff barriers via aligning regulation, labour standards, and intellectual property will almost certainly be us conceding to the US side and, let's face it, even if we do sign the ISDS tribunals aren't going to rule in favour of the UK against US investors very often.
Unrelated, but I'm not particularly happy with the extradition treaty "as is" either.
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/821026363754893312
Mrs May will surely bring him back later in the year, or risk losing him from Parliament at the next election?
We're like the Jedis after episode III, we've had a setback, we've gone into exile, but we will be back.
As long as people like Ken Clarke, George Osborne, David Cameron, and JohnO are in the Tory party, then I'll still be there.
I joined in May 1997, trust me it wasn't for the the glory.
Also the same time that I met PB's very own Sean F
Is why I don't like May/June elections, they clash with exam time.
I hope it never happens, but if I was wrongly charged with a crime, I know which country I would have the better chance of being helped to prove my innocence, and it ain't America.
On a personal level, it is a tragedy that Gove, who was Ivan Cameron's godfather is on such bad terms now with David and Sam Cameron.
I remain a huge fan of his education reforms, liked his justice reforms, and thought he was a hero during the Leave campaign. Right up until just after the result.
But, he could also be impossible, dogmatic, unreliable and had a bit of a tin ear for how his words and actions would be received. I don't think he's Machiavellian, or sinister like Richard Nixon, but clearly, sometimes, he just can't help himself.
Has taken me seven months to finally come to terms with Cameron's resignation, forget the EU referendum result, the worst thing to happen on June 24th was Dave resigning.
The latter point is merely a re-emphasis of the fact that not all elections are like, and voting patterns can vary enormously. If this were untrue then Parliament might have rather more independent/minor party representation than is in fact the case.
Two awful options.
How many innocents who can't afford the right lawyer or fines go to jail there?
Put it this way, in late 2015, Gove assured Cameron that whilst he would be backing Leave, he would not campaign for Leave, nor criticise the government.
He failed to adhere to his promises.
Why do you think post referendum Boris and Dave bonded over a mutual betrayal by Gove?
I remember Blair being omnipotent, disagreeing with the vast majority of what he did, seeing Britain change before my eyes, and thinking the Conservatives would never win again.
Not particularly fun years.
Extradition should only be granted where:-
1. The requesting state can make a prima facie case that the individual may have committed a criminal offence, with the standards to be applied those of English criminal law.
2. The offence in question is one which is an offence in the UK.
3. There is no strong nexus with the UK. So if the majority of witnesses/evidence are based in the UK the matter ought to be prosecuted in the UK.
4. There have to be certain minimum standards of process so that the UK citizen is not unfairly prejudiced e.g. I would - and I realize I'm a purist on this - be wary of extraditing people to countries where there is no concept of habeas corpus or where people can be locked up long periods without a trial and with no effective means of defending themselves.
Administrative convenience and the polite fiction that legal systems of, let us say, countries which have recently been Communist are equivalent to the British criminal system (trial by jury / burden of proof etc) should not override the rights of British citizens.
They've known each other for over 30 years, some things hurt more when it done by someone close to you.
history will judge the EUref as a huge mistake by a sitting PM
Interesting that Mrs Gove was so prominent in the Boris betrayal
Having a different opinion isn't a betrayal, I have friends with radically different beliefs to mine, and who campaigned on the other side of this referendum, I didn't fall out with them over it.
I can see why you're such a fan!!! Bonus points for saying "I told you so" even if he turns out to be wrong??!!
Strictly come dancing 2017 ?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/art-brexit-deal/
"So, have the hard core of irreconcilable Remainers engaged in any self-analysis? Having got their short-term predictions so badly wrong, are they reassessing their long-term predictions? Not a bit of it. They are still issuing the same hysterical warnings, only now they apply them to the supposedly abominable prospect of a ‘hard Brexit’ – by which they mean leaving the EU without any special deal."
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" — Proverbs 26:11
Meanwhile, I've just noticed something in Phil Hammond's Die Welt interview which is important and hasn't got much attention:
We are going to serve the [Article 50] notice in spring. We would expect that we start with substantive negotiations with the EU before the summer. The treaty is clear that the negotiation of an exit agreement has to take account of the future relationship between the parties. To do that we have to talk about the future relationship. So we would expect that we would discuss the topics in parallel.
https://www.welt.de/english-news/article161182946/Philip-Hammond-issues-threat-to-EU-partners.html
That flatly contradicts the EU position that the negotiations are separate. It's also entirely logical - how can you discuss exit terms if you don't have any idea what you are exiting to? - and, as he points out, is clear in Article 50:
the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union..
I can't see that aspect of the EU battleplan surviving contact with the enemy.
In terms of conduct during the campaign, Gove was polite in putting his case forward. Cameron called Leavers Little Englanders.
2/3 either not offered bail or can't afford it.
http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/02/27/the-daily-q-how-long-criminal-cas/
If he hadn't....
"Much of the social conservative, traditional white working class vote is more amenable to being wooed by Ukip than the Lib Dems, and the more committed Lefties are still disinclined to trust them."
that seemed to be ignoring the indications that we are getting from Council elections, Westminster By-Elections and even opinion polls. To me these indicate that UKIP is declining and the LibDems are improving, nothing more than that.
See also the YouGov yearly summary above.