Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
There was an official Leave campaign. It is not unreasonable for voters to have taken its claims and pledges seriously. However, the Guardian should distinguish what the official campaign said from Nigel Farage's unofficial musings.
In order for that to hold water the official leave campaign would have to have undertakings from the elected government that it would enact those policies should they win, for some reason the government wasn't terribly receptive to that idea.
The CBI is the official lobby and campaign organisation for British Industry, created under Royal Charter, yet people don't blame then for government economic plans they have supported. We never hear "but the government changed its mind and did something stupid despite promises made by the CBI"
I was stunningly unimpressed by her during the leadership campaign and the only time she showed any passion was over wanting to admit more refugees to the UK. And she was more than a little hyperbolic on it.
Important as it is to the Labour base it shows a tin ear for those voters - particularly those concerned by immigration - that Labour needs to win back over.
Yvette Cooper ? She makes a dead fish come alive by comparison. As for being a safe pair of hands.. well any politician that allows herself to be drawn into promising something she does not want to do - and does not do it - is NOT safe.. (Houses for refugees).
An utter turnoff.
Ed Balls is the answer. He can do Metro and blue collar.
I would have thought so too, but our friends on the left tell us he has as much chance of being chosen by the selectorate as he does of walking on the moon.
I think Mr. Dancer has offered to help with sending him there, utilising his space cannon...
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Not a bad article by Joff but I feel the analysis is incomplete:
(1) Continental EU voters are turning to nurse - i.e. institutionally pro EU politicians- as they face up to the UK leaving, a hostile US administration and a gleeful Russia (2) It's not just the leader, it's also the electoral cycle and booting out politicians who've been in power a long time. Merkel has been there a very long time: over 11 years (3) It remains to be seen if these hypotheses are born out in elections, but the splintering of the Right that enables a Left government to win (Sweden, and possibly Germany and France) does not resolve the long-term problems of social democracy
In Germany, the parties of the Right are generally polling over 50%, but the CDU and FDP won't co-operate with AFD, so another Grand Coalition is the likeliest outcome.
Overall, the SDP are still polling at historically low levels.
The article completely ignores the fact that Labour is down to just one MP in Scotland with little prospect of that changing. The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
Labour's best option is to back independence and remove Scotland from the electoral calculations.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out that what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
Depends how you read it though. If you read it as a learned and objective report on the feasible alternatives to CFP under international fish-stock agreements, then we are indeed stuffed.
... so the EU's opening gambit here is the status quo?
Shouldn't we assume that will be the case everywhere?
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
The article completely ignores the fact that Labour is down to just one MP in Scotland with little prospect of that changing. The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
Labour had a majority in England and Wales, without Scotland, in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Sure, things would be easier if Labour returned to dominance north of the border but an SNP/Conservative coalition is unlikely.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
its still just a taxi full...
Mind you, UKIP's total is just a pushbike full, and not even a tandem.
... and you wouldn't think it possible to have a split with just one MP but UKIP seem to manage it.
Thanks for the comments. A few points: * Any Labour fight back is a process. Whatever happens from here, the Tories are likely to win most seats at the GE. However, if they do not win an overall majority, things get a lot more interesting. It puts strains on the Tories, it makes it harder for them to get legislation through, it may even throw open the possibility of them losing power. A well-led labour party could and should be aiming for that in 2020. * All successful Labour leaders have been patriots, been comfortable with patriotism and have encouraged it. Ed Miliband understood that, but was uneasy with it. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't begin to get it; in fact, he is probably repulsed by it. Understandably, most voters do not begin to relate to this. * Short-term, a credible leader and shadow team, combined with a Tory government that fails to deliver, will boost Labour and get it a hearing; longer term, there are a wide range of policy issues that the party has to tackle. It has to leave its comfort zone if it is to have a sustainable, long-term future. * Someone mentions electoral cycles downthread. That is important and is probably playing apart in Germany and other European countries. But Labour under Corbyn is beyond that. The Tories have a totally free hand while he remains in charge; after a short-term bounce for Labour, that is likely to continue to be the case if Corbyn is succeeded by someone on the far left. * Labour has to focus on England for the time being. Scotland is another battle and one that probably cannot begin to be fought until there is a constitutional process that ends either with independence or a widely agreed new devolution settlement. * The task is either extremely hard for Labour or it is impossible, There are no quick fixes.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
What the fuck *did* you vote for if you airily dismiss every Leave campaign promise* as no more substantial than fresh air? This is the very essence of sovereignty and you dismiss it as "oh well who cares of course they couldn't deliver it".
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
She seems sensible and competent, and is probably left wing enough for many members, but is she going to be too left wing for floating voters in marginals.
The critical problem for Labour is that they need to appeal to floating voters and wet Tories to have any chance of a majority, especially without any seats in Scotland, which any leader even moderately to the left wont deliver them.
The article completely ignores the fact that Labour is down to just one MP in Scotland with little prospect of that changing. The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
Hi @Davegoo. Ian Murray is my MP. It's a three-way fight now. The LDs are no longer in play here, and if Labour support falls, which I expect, the Conservatives are as likely to benefit as SNP (though their candidate was god-awful last time so they may claw back some votes with a different one).
..........And one of Labour's best MPs. You live in a very attractive part of Edinburgh and one of the nicest Labour constituencies in the UK.
The article completely ignores the fact that Labour is down to just one MP in Scotland with little prospect of that changing. The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
Labour's best option is to back independence and remove Scotland from the electoral calculations.
Removing Scotland makes Labour's task objectively harder :
It means that Labour needs to win 296 seats of a theoretical 591 seat parliament rather than say 273 that they need with Scotland.
The SNP will never give confidence & supply to the Conservatives.
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
But when you realise how bad Sarah Olney is then I guess its 8
Their resurgence in council by elections has been impressive, if they had a better leader in their ranks they would be making proper inroads in national polling.
No. First, the LibDems need some policies. Bleating about Brexit won't fill the void once Article 50 is triggered and they realise there is no way of walking back up the slippery slide marked "WE'RE OFF OUT".
They need policies for a UK on the outside - not standing with their faces pressed up against the window of the EU, silently mouthing "let us back in....pleeeeease....."
She seems sensible and competent, and is probably left wing enough for many members, but is she going to be too left wing for floating voters in marginals.
The critical problem for Labour is that they need to appeal to floating voters and wet Tories to have any chance of a majority, especially without any seats in Scotland, which any leader even moderately to the left wont deliver them.
Too left wing for floating voters?
Pre-Brexit, that would have been a concern.
What Labour need now, is a competent and coherent anti-Government opposition.
If Brexit turns bad, how anti-Brexit you are will be more important than how left wing (in the short term)
Mr. Song, sounds like a man preaching to the converted. Corbyn gets applause at rallies too.
Persuading neutrals and those on the other side is what matters.
The whole point is that students weren't expected to be Nick Clegg fans.
The students of today expected to pay tuition fees. The ones of the recent past didn't and were promised they wouldn't. That could account for the different reaction.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
There was an official Leave campaign. It is not unreasonable for voters to have taken its claims and pledges seriously. However, the Guardian should distinguish what the official campaign said from Nigel Farage's unofficial musings.
In order for that to hold water the official leave campaign would have to have undertakings from the elected government that it would enact those policies should they win, for some reason the government wasn't terribly receptive to that idea.
The CBI is the official lobby and campaign organisation for British Industry, created under Royal Charter, yet people don't blame then for government economic plans they have supported. We never hear "but the government changed its mind and did something stupid despite promises made by the CBI"
The CBI is not at all analogous. The official leave and remain campaigns said what they said and that must be the basis of the vote. Incidentally, what leave did not say much about was immigration so it is ironic that so many of our politicians including the government seem to be most exercised about this. Farage may have kept banging on about immigrants but the official campaign led on £350 million to the NHS from what I recall.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
What the fuck *did* you vote for if you airily dismiss every Leave campaign promise* as no more substantial than fresh air? This is the very essence of sovereignty and you dismiss it as "oh well who cares of course they couldn't deliver it".
*LOL
Bollocks.
I didn't vote. But if I had it would have been on the basis of what was written on the referendum "to leave the EU". What happened after that was always going to be down to the government of the day, as I said as some length before the referendum. If you don't like what the government of the day does, you vote for a different one, THAT is sovereignty.
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
As has been said many times, both sides were broad coalitions of voters who had varying concerns.
It's tiresome to consider half the country either stupid xenophobes or treacherous federalists.
Not a bad article by Joff but I feel the analysis is incomplete:
(1) Continental EU voters are turning to nurse - i.e. institutionally pro EU politicians- as they face up to the UK leaving, a hostile US administration and a gleeful Russia (2) It's not just the leader, it's also the electoral cycle and booting out politicians who've been in power a long time. Merkel has been there a very long time: over 11 years (3) It remains to be seen if these hypotheses are born out in elections, but the splintering of the Right that enables a Left government to win (Sweden, and possibly Germany and France) does not resolve the long-term problems of social democracy
In Germany, the parties of the Right are generally polling over 50%, but the CDU and FDP won't co-operate with AFD, so another Grand Coalition is the likeliest outcome.
Overall, the SDP are still polling at historically low levels.
There's been extraordinary fragmentation everywhere - the CDU/CSU is at historic lows in Germany too. In the Netherlands, the PVV might well come top... but with 16 or 17% of the vote. First in the first round in France might end up going to someone with barely one-in-four of the votes.
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
Irrelevant. Many of today's students weren't even born in 1997. It's ancient history as far as they are concerned
She seems sensible and competent, and is probably left wing enough for many members, but is she going to be too left wing for floating voters in marginals.
The critical problem for Labour is that they need to appeal to floating voters and wet Tories to have any chance of a majority, especially without any seats in Scotland, which any leader even moderately to the left wont deliver them.
Too left wing for floating voters?
Pre-Brexit, that would have been a concern.
What Labour need now, is a competent and coherent anti-Government opposition.
If Brexit turns bad, how anti-Brexit you are will be more important than how left wing (in the short term)
By the time Labour might get into power BrExit for good or ill will have happened. There won't be an anti-BrExit position. The question then will be who the voters blame (which has as much chance of being the EU as it does of being the government), and who has the most credible plan for picking up the pieces if it goes wrong. To qualify for the later involves not being in complete economic lala land.
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
I think Mr Wintour is referring to Clegg’s broken pledge to stop tuition fees.
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
Irrelevant. Many of today's students weren't even born in 1997. It's ancient history as far as they are concerned
Its an additional 9% tax on earnings, is what it is.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
By the time Labour might get into power BrExit for good or ill will have happened. There won't be an anti-BrExit position. The question then will be who the voters blame (which has as much chance of being the EU as it does of being the government), and who has the most credible plan for picking up the pieces if it goes wrong. To qualify for the later involves not being in complete economic lala land.
The question is not "by the time Labour get into power", the question is if Labour could get a new leader now.
And Brexit will not have "happened" in its entirety any time in the next decade
She seems sensible and competent, and is probably left wing enough for many members, but is she going to be too left wing for floating voters in marginals.
The critical problem for Labour is that they need to appeal to floating voters and wet Tories to have any chance of a majority, especially without any seats in Scotland, which any leader even moderately to the left wont deliver them.
Too left wing for floating voters?
Pre-Brexit, that would have been a concern.
What Labour need now, is a competent and coherent anti-Government opposition.
If Brexit turns bad, how anti-Brexit you are will be more important than how left wing (in the short term)
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
But when you realise how bad Sarah Olney is then I guess its 8
Their resurgence in council by elections has been impressive, if they had a better leader in their ranks they would be making proper inroads in national polling.
No. First, the LibDems need some policies. Bleating about Brexit won't fill the void once Article 50 is triggered and they realise there is no way of walking back up the slippery slide marked "WE'RE OFF OUT".
They need policies for a UK on the outside - not standing with their faces pressed up against the window of the EU, silently mouthing "let us back in....pleeeeease....."
This is a damn good point, the shelf life for being the "we love the EU" party is limited. Most die-hard Remainers concede that once we are out, we are out for good.
Yvette Cooper as leader of the Labour party.. Jeez , wasn't it she who gave us the useless HIPS legislation and I seem to recall focus groups were not impressed with her. She lacks gravitas, far tooo lightweight despite years in the HOC and despite OGH having ideas about it
Her latest high profile campaign to increase the number of refugees coming here struck me as a paradigm of her career. Well meaning, genuinely compassionate, more than somewhat out of touch with the majority and not great on the practicalities. Her campaign for leader made Liz Kendall's look good.
Yvette Cooper said she was prepared to take some refugees into her home but has not done so. All words, no action, no sincerity.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
What the fuck *did* you vote for if you airily dismiss every Leave campaign promise* as no more substantial than fresh air? This is the very essence of sovereignty and you dismiss it as "oh well who cares of course they couldn't deliver it".
*LOL
Bollocks.
I didn't vote. But if I had it would have been on the basis of what was written on the referendum "to leave the EU". What happened after that was always going to be down to the government of the day, as I said as some length before the referendum. If you don't like what the government of the day does, you vote for a different one, THAT is sovereignty.
"Didn't vote." K.
Don't forget - we have always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it to you. No offence.
So based upon a whim and a wing and a prayer, people decided they didn't like the EU? Of course not; as @DecrepitJohnL has also pointed out, there was an official Leave campaign and people had every right to think that what they said would transpire. Vote Leave folk are actually in government now, you know.
And as for fisheries, surely...SURELY...the very essence of sovereignty is to control our waters?!? And now you are saying - fine, doesn't matter, the promise by Vote Leave wasn't worth the paper it was printed upon.
Mr. P, I've said before, and still hold the view, that there's a pretty broad range of options with which I'd be content, upon leaving the EU. Only a very small number are hard and fast positions (we must be outside any EU army, and the customs union, although *a* customs union could work).
I think a lot of people, especially in the media, forget this will be a negotiation. You don't just demand what you want and get it. Some things will be achieved, some things won't.
Anyway, I'd better get some work done.
Although I have been thinking of an alternative way to make a living. 1) Move to Northern Ireland. 2) Turn the heating up to maximum. 3) Profit!
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
Irrelevant. Many of today's students weren't even born in 1997. It's ancient history as far as they are concerned
Its an additional 9% tax on earnings, is what it is.
It's a capped graduation tax in all but name, but frankly I'd support making it a full graduation tax and deliberately taking more money.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
There you go again...
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
Irrelevant. Many of today's students weren't even born in 1997. It's ancient history as far as they are concerned
There will be a few students studying ancient history.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
There you go again...
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
But you know that.
Given that there were multiple leave campaigns representing all sorts of different parties, with some goals that are mutually exclusive, it's stupid to say "Leavers want X" as though every one of the 17 million voted for exactly the same reasons. This kind of "thinking" by Remainers is getting them nowhere, which is good because it means they are sidelining themselves from the process.
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
Irrelevant. Many of today's students weren't even born in 1997. It's ancient history as far as they are concerned
Its an additional 9% tax on earnings, is what it is.
It's a capped graduation tax in all but name, but frankly I'd support making it a full graduation tax and deliberately taking more money.
I'd personally start by stopping selling off the books at significantly under true NPV.
I really can't agree with you about the identikit Labour leader. The most successful one in my lifetime would never play the patriotic little Englander or bow to the cross of St George. . His accent was 100% metropolitan and his popularity transcended parties and generations.
At the time there was no evidence whatsoever that he was a nutter.......
Well to stand for labour in 1982 would not have been seen as a good career move for PM.Shows how times can change.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
There you go again...
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
But you know that.
Given that there were multiple leave campaigns representing all sorts of different parties, with some goals that are mutually exclusive, it's stupid to say "Leavers want X" as though every one of the 17 million voted for exactly the same reasons. This kind of "thinking" by Remainers is getting them nowhere, which is good because it means they are sidelining themselves from the process.
There was a competition to be, and then appointment of only one official Leave campaign.
Re this - "Labour needs a leader who is not uncomfortable with the kind of harmless patriotism that most English people of all political persuasions are happy to indulge in" - I think the Labour party needs to go further.
It needs to be seen as a party which puts the interests of Britain and its people first. Not merely "not uncomfortable".
It's not just Corbyn's flirtation with terrorists who wanted to bomb Britain which is the problem but also the attitude expressed by our own dear Mr Palmer last August where he said this:-
"How does it feel about the nation it seeks to govern? I don’t intuitively agree with Cyclefree’s view of “Britain first”. I think we should follow the more subtle policy of ensuring that Britain’s needs get fair consideration. That’s an important role for Britain’s government (nobody else will bother), but I don’t favour putting our needs above everyone else’s."
I think a lot of the voters Labour needs to win back do feel that Britain's government should "favour putting our needs above everyone else's."
Always a bit unnerving to find posters accumulating everything you say to be quoted back later! But it's still what I think, and I've talked to a very large number of swing voters over the years. People want to Britain to have a fair share of the cake, not to have Britain take advantage of other people in more difficulty than ourselves. Thus they're mostly quite OK with taking a reasonable share of refugees but object to any sense that we're taking a lot more than others. They were OK with share sovreignity in Europe up to a point, but not when they thought Britain kept getting shafted.
On Joff's article, I think he overestimates the importance of ideology, just as people on the far left do, and his wing of the party needs to avoid trying to dominate and exclude anyone to the left of Liz Kendall - there are lots of us who would fight that, just as the far left ultimately realised that we wouldn't have supported a deselection strategy.
What people everywhere want (and feel they aren't currently getting from Labour) is a sense of decisive competence associated with fairness to people like themselves.They are quite willing to look at people nominally on the left or the right if they think they see that - which is what Trump had going for him, and the reason why I think the current chaos will damage him more than all his locker-room talk.
Can’t believe we’re still discussing Jermy Corbyn’s future, when the entire Eurovision 2017 organising team has just quit en masse. – Where’s your priorities folks…
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close. 9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
Tuition fees were introduced by the Labour government.
Irrelevant. Many of today's students weren't even born in 1997. It's ancient history as far as they are concerned
Its an additional 9% tax on earnings, is what it is.
It's a capped graduation tax in all but name, but frankly I'd support making it a full graduation tax and deliberately taking more money.
We'd be better off with an unskilled labour tax - at least the students are trying to think about the future.
Can’t believe we’re still discussing Jermy Corbyn’s future, when the entire Eurovision 2017 organising team has just quit en masse. – Where’s your priorities folks…
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
I agree. She would be my choice.
Maybe they should just stage a series of elimination hustings with Andrew Neil grilling each of the candidates in turn. Or draft in Lloyd Webber an have an entire BBC series of You Could be Leader ?
Still 66/1 last time i checked (which was a few days ago). Very likely to be at least two more by-elections in ultra-safe Labour seats after the regional mayoral elections this May.
If Balls did put his name forward for one of them, he ought to be open from Day 1 about doing so in order to challenge Corbyn. The question would be inevitable and any other answer would sound false and would taint him with implied support for Corbyn.
Re this - "Labour needs a leader who is not uncomfortable with the kind of harmless patriotism that most English people of all political persuasions are happy to indulge in" - I think the Labour party needs to go further.
It needs to be seen as a party which puts the interests of Britain and its people first. Not merely "not uncomfortable".
It's not just Corbyn's flirtation with terrorists who wanted to bomb Britain which is the problem but also the attitude expressed by our own dear Mr Palmer last August where he said this:-
"How does it feel about the nation it seeks to govern? I don’t intuitively agree with Cyclefree’s view of “Britain first”. I think we should follow the more subtle policy of ensuring that Britain’s needs get fair consideration. That’s an important role for Britain’s government (nobody else will bother), but I don’t favour putting our needs above everyone else’s."
I think a lot of the voters Labour needs to win back do feel that Britain's government should "favour putting our needs above everyone else's."
Always a bit unnerving to find posters accumulating everything you say to be quoted back later! But it's still what I think, and I've talked to a very large number of swing voters over the years. People want to Britain to have a fair share of the cake, not to have Britain take advantage of other people in more difficulty than ourselves. Thus they're mostly quite OK with taking a reasonable share of refugees but object to any sense that we're taking a lot more than others. They were OK with share sovreignity in Europe up to a point, but not when they thought Britain kept getting shafted.
On Joff's article, I think he overestimates the importance of ideology, just as people on the far left do, and his wing of the party needs to avoid trying to dominate and exclude anyone to the left of Liz Kendall - there are lots of us who would fight that, just as the far left ultimately realised that we wouldn't have supported a deselection strategy.
What people everywhere want (and feel they aren't currently getting from Labour) is a sense of decisive competence associated with fairness to people like themselves.They are quite willing to look at people nominally on the left or the right if they think they see that - which is what Trump had going for him, and the reason why I think the current chaos will damage him more than all his locker-room talk.
Nick, do you seriously believe - honestly - that people like Caroline Flint, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, Jon Ashworth, Stella Creasey, Angela Eagle and Ed Miliband are not to the left of Liz Kendall? I name checked all of them.
Do you not "believe that collectivism, redistribution and solidarity at home and abroad remain principles around which coherent, relevant policy can be built"?
Always a bit unnerving to find posters accumulating everything you say to be quoted back later! But it's still what I think, and I've talked to a very large number of swing voters over the years. People want to Britain to have a fair share of the cake, not to have Britain take advantage of other people in more difficulty than ourselves. Thus they're mostly quite OK with taking a reasonable share of refugees but object to any sense that we're taking a lot more than others. They were OK with share sovreignity in Europe up to a point, but not when they thought Britain kept getting shafted.
On Joff's article, I think he overestimates the importance of ideology, just as people on the far left do, and his wing of the party needs to avoid trying to dominate and exclude anyone to the left of Liz Kendall - there are lots of us who would fight that, just as the far left ultimately realised that we wouldn't have supported a deselection strategy.
What people everywhere want (and feel they aren't currently getting from Labour) is a sense of decisive competence associated with fairness to people like themselves.They are quite willing to look at people nominally on the left or the right if they think they see that - which is what Trump had going for him, and the reason why I think the current chaos will damage him more than all his locker-room talk.
@NickPalmer: I didn't want to (mis)quote you from memory. That is why I checked.
When I talk about putting Britain's interests first I do not mean Britain taking advantage of others in more difficulty than ourselves. But I do mean that British politicians should see it as their priority to make life better for the people in Britain. Whereas some politicians seem to think that it is more important to show their concern for people in other countries. And that can easily morph into an apparent disdain for the concerns of people here. Charity starts at home. So should politics.
Too many politicians appear to have modeled themselves on Mrs Jellaby from Bleak House. And when Dickens created her he was satirizing people like her not holding her up as a model to be followed.
Still 66/1 last time i checked (which was a few days ago). Very likely to be at least two more by-elections in ultra-safe Labour seats after the regional mayoral elections this May.
If Balls did put his name forward for one of them, he ought to be open from Day 1 about doing so in order to challenge Corbyn. The question would be inevitable and any other answer would sound false and would taint him with implied support for Corbyn.
Or he could simply say, "If a leadership election were to take place in the future, I would consider putting myself forward but at present there is no vacancy......"
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
There you go again...
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
But you know that.
Given that there were multiple leave campaigns representing all sorts of different parties, with some goals that are mutually exclusive, it's stupid to say "Leavers want X" as though every one of the 17 million voted for exactly the same reasons. This kind of "thinking" by Remainers is getting them nowhere, which is good because it means they are sidelining themselves from the process.
There was a competition to be, and then appointment of only one official Leave campaign.
I know, but it doesn't mean that everyone else shut up, or that every voter only voted Leave if the agreed with Vote Leave. It's simply daft to think there's a single viewpoint held by every Leaver. If Remainers want to have some influence over what the UK does next they need to move on, as the clock is ticking.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
There you go again...
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
But you know that.
Given that there were multiple leave campaigns representing all sorts of different parties, with some goals that are mutually exclusive, it's stupid to say "Leavers want X" as though every one of the 17 million voted for exactly the same reasons. This kind of "thinking" by Remainers is getting them nowhere, which is good because it means they are sidelining themselves from the process.
There was a competition to be, and then appointment of only one official Leave campaign.
I know, but it doesn't mean that everyone else shut up, or that every voter only voted Leave if the agreed with Vote Leave. It's simply daft to think there's a single viewpoint held by every Leaver. If Remainers want to have some influence over what the UK does next they need to move on, as the clock is ticking.
Well I think it's sensible to get the ground rules right. There was an official Leave campaign (VLTC). It is reasonable to assume that Brexit negotiations should revolve around their manifesto. Same as a GE. Each party's manifesto is a guide to what their administration is likely to (arguably should) include. Plenty of reasons to vote Cons, Lab or LD (or UKIP). But the manifesto is the critical document which promises which route they will take.
Still 66/1 last time i checked (which was a few days ago). Very likely to be at least two more by-elections in ultra-safe Labour seats after the regional mayoral elections this May.
If Balls did put his name forward for one of them, he ought to be open from Day 1 about doing so in order to challenge Corbyn. The question would be inevitable and any other answer would sound false and would taint him with implied support for Corbyn.
Or he could simply say, "If a leadership election were to take place in the future, I would consider putting myself forward but at present there is no vacancy......"
That would be a cop-out though given that it's pretty much universally accepted that there will need to be another election one way or another.
What Labour needs now is leadership. The first person to stand up, look like and act like a leader will get the job. it might yet be Corbyn by default if no-one else is prepared to take on that challenge.
Overall, there's about a 20 point favourability gap vs the Conservatives except in London & Scotland (draws) and among the young and Remain voters where Labour are well ahead. Conservatives have crushing leads among Leavers (77 point difference), over 50s (34 points), over 65s (89 points) which might be expected, a 23 point lead in the Midlands, 20 points among C2DE voters (a draw with ABC1s!) and even a narrow 2 point lead in the North might not:
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
There was an official Leave campaign. It is not unreasonable for voters to have taken its claims and pledges seriously. However, the Guardian should distinguish what the official campaign said from Nigel Farage's unofficial musings.
In order for that to hold water the official leave campaign would have to have undertakings from the elected government that it would enact those policies should they win, for some reason the government wasn't terribly receptive to that idea.
The CBI is the official lobby and campaign organisation for British Industry, created under Royal Charter, yet people don't blame then for government economic plans they have supported. We never hear "but the government changed its mind and did something stupid despite promises made by the CBI"
The CBI is not at all analogous. The official leave and remain campaigns said what they said and that must be the basis of the vote. Incidentally, what leave did not say much about was immigration so it is ironic that so many of our politicians including the government seem to be most exercised about this. Farage may have kept banging on about immigrants but the official campaign led on £350 million to the NHS from what I recall.
Including this bit about 'this is your decision and the government will implement whatever you vote for' ?
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
It's just a shame she sounds like Ed Miliband.
Her manc accent sounds nothing like Ed Miliband's north London vowels.
Their best bet (which they won't do) would be Lisa Nandy.
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
It's just a shame she sounds like Ed Miliband.
Her manc accent sounds nothing like Ed Miliband's north London vowels.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
What the fuck *did* you vote for if you airily dismiss every Leave campaign promise* as no more substantial than fresh air? This is the very essence of sovereignty and you dismiss it as "oh well who cares of course they couldn't deliver it".
*LOL
Bollocks.
I didn't vote. But if I had it would have been on the basis of what was written on the referendum "to leave the EU". What happened after that was always going to be down to the government of the day, as I said as some length before the referendum. If you don't like what the government of the day does, you vote for a different one, THAT is sovereignty.
"Didn't vote." K.
Don't forget - we have always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it to you. No offence.
So based upon a whim and a wing and a prayer, people decided they didn't like the EU? Of course not; as @DecrepitJohnL has also pointed out, there was an official Leave campaign and people had every right to think that what they said would transpire. Vote Leave folk are actually in government now, you know.
And as for fisheries, surely...SURELY...the very essence of sovereignty is to control our waters?!? And now you are saying - fine, doesn't matter, the promise by Vote Leave wasn't worth the paper it was printed upon.
The 'always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it' misses the point.
The sovereignty vote was about telling *our* politicians to stop giving powers away when they had no authority to do so.
I'm fine if they discuss a policy with their partners in Europe or NATO or Timbuktoo. So long as I get to hold them directly accountable for the outcome.
"We agreed to do X" is very different to "A majority of other countries voted to do X and therefore we must do it"
The article completely ignores the fact that Labour is down to just one MP in Scotland with little prospect of that changing. The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
Hi @Davegoo. Ian Murray is my MP. It's a three-way fight now. The LDs are no longer in play here, and if Labour support falls, which I expect, the Conservatives are as likely to benefit as SNP (though their candidate was god-awful last time so they may claw back some votes with a different one).
..........And one of Labour's best MPs. You live in a very attractive part of Edinburgh and one of the nicest Labour constituencies in the UK.
Unfortunately for Lab his seat is currently planned to be chopped in 2 in the draft boundaries. According to Electoral Calculus, he would have to fight Edinburgh East (SNP maj over Lab 2,628) or Edinburgh SW and Central (SNP maj over Lab 7,160 with Con 1,300 votes further back)
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sget ?
Te official campaign said from Nigel Farage's unofficial musings.
In order for tomises made by the CBI"
The CBI is not at all analogous. The official leave and remain campaigns said what they said and that must be the basis of the vote. Incidentally, what leave did not say much about was immigration so it is ironic that so many of our politicians including the government seem to be most exercised about this. Farage may have kept banging on about immigrants but the official campaign led on £350 million to the NHS from what I recall.
Including this bit about 'this is your decision and the government will implement whatever you vote for' ?
There is every reason why we should expect the government to implement the VLTC manifesto. As a Remainer, I would have no problem with this (I wouldn't think it's in the best interests of the country, but hey, no biggie).
What intrigues me on a daily basis (luckily enough only on PB) is that people on here on the one hand say that it's up to the government, and yet selectively pick bits and bobs of VLTC (and other) campaign promises which they believe are somehow red lines. Theresa May has chosen immigration as one such and she is probably in tune with the majority of Leave voters. But Leavers can't have their cake and eat it (unlike the UK). Either it is up to the government in which case let them do what they want (maintain free movement, remain in the single market, etc); or let them follow the official Leave manifesto.
It surfaced again today with the CFP with one notable PB Leaver saying that if there was no change in that area, it would be fine. Well I can't think of a better example of sovereignty than controlling your own waters plus it was in the VLTC manifesto, but he didn't seem to think it mattered and...it was up to the government...
Mr. Jessop, too horrendously modern for me to discuss the military aspect, but some should be spent on psychological support for personnel, both current and former.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
What the fuck *did* you vote for if you airily dismiss every Leave campaign promise* as no more substantial than fresh air? This is the very essence of sovereignty and you dismiss it as "oh well who cares of course they couldn't deliver it".
*LOL
Bollocks.
I didn't vote. But if I had it would have been on the basis of what was written on the referendum "to leave the EU". What happened after that was always going to be down to the government of the day, as I said as some length before the referendum. If you don't like what the government of the day does, you vote for a different one, THAT is sovereignty.
"Didn't vote." K.
Don't forget - we have always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it to you. No offence.
So based upon a whim and a wing and a prayer, people decided they didn't like the EU? Of course not; as @DecrepitJohnL has also pointed out, there was an official Leave campaign and people had every right to think that what they said would transpire. Vote Leave folk are actually in government now, you know.
And as for fisheries, surely...SURELY...the very essence of sovereignty is to control our waters?!? And now you are saying - fine, doesn't matter, the promise by Vote Leave wasn't worth the paper it was printed upon.
The 'always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it' misses the point.
The sovereignty vote was about telling *our* politicians to stop giving powers away when they had no authority to do so.
I'm fine if they discuss a policy with their partners in Europe or NATO or Timbuktoo. So long as I get to hold them directly accountable for the outcome.
"We agreed to do X" is very different to "A majority of other countries voted to do X and therefore we must do it"
It is also Topping talking his usual rubbish. He has no real idea what Sovereignty actually means ams spends his time trying to disprove it's actually meaning and it's historical importance.
Mr. Jessop, too horrendously modern for me to discuss the military aspect, but some should be spent on psychological support for personnel, both current and former.
Comments
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour
Heard Nick Clegg speak on Europe at a very large student event in London last night. No question on tuition fees. Huge applause at close.
9:32 AM - 10 Feb 2017
The CBI is the official lobby and campaign organisation for British Industry, created under Royal Charter, yet people don't blame then for government economic plans they have supported. We never hear "but the government changed its mind and did something stupid despite promises made by the CBI"
She has no cabinet experience, but neither did Jezza, so that's not an impediment, and she doesn't come across as a complete blithering idiot, even when interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Overall, the SDP are still polling at historically low levels.
Persuading neutrals and those on the other side is what matters.
Shouldn't we assume that will be the case everywhere?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.128848952
Argued for by David Herdson last June.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/26/might-balls-be-labours-answer-at-1001/
* Any Labour fight back is a process. Whatever happens from here, the Tories are likely to win most seats at the GE. However, if they do not win an overall majority, things get a lot more interesting. It puts strains on the Tories, it makes it harder for them to get legislation through, it may even throw open the possibility of them losing power. A well-led labour party could and should be aiming for that in 2020.
* All successful Labour leaders have been patriots, been comfortable with patriotism and have encouraged it. Ed Miliband understood that, but was uneasy with it. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't begin to get it; in fact, he is probably repulsed by it. Understandably, most voters do not begin to relate to this.
* Short-term, a credible leader and shadow team, combined with a Tory government that fails to deliver, will boost Labour and get it a hearing; longer term, there are a wide range of policy issues that the party has to tackle. It has to leave its comfort zone if it is to have a sustainable, long-term future.
* Someone mentions electoral cycles downthread. That is important and is probably playing apart in Germany and other European countries. But Labour under Corbyn is beyond that. The Tories have a totally free hand while he remains in charge; after a short-term bounce for Labour, that is likely to continue to be the case if Corbyn is succeeded by someone on the far left.
* Labour has to focus on England for the time being. Scotland is another battle and one that probably cannot begin to be fought until there is a constitutional process that ends either with independence or a widely agreed new devolution settlement.
* The task is either extremely hard for Labour or it is impossible, There are no quick fixes.
*LOL
The critical problem for Labour is that they need to appeal to floating voters and wet Tories to have any chance of a majority, especially without any seats in Scotland, which any leader even moderately to the left wont deliver them.
It means that Labour needs to win 296 seats of a theoretical 591 seat parliament rather than say 273 that they need with Scotland.
The SNP will never give confidence & supply to the Conservatives.
They need policies for a UK on the outside - not standing with their faces pressed up against the window of the EU, silently mouthing "let us back in....pleeeeease....."
Mr. Song, no, but they are EU fans [collectively, obviously every demographic is split].
Pre-Brexit, that would have been a concern.
What Labour need now, is a competent and coherent anti-Government opposition.
If Brexit turns bad, how anti-Brexit you are will be more important than how left wing (in the short term)
Nor do I see much wrong with the socialist Labour leadership running a socialist party.
Labour's problem is that the majority of electors have decided they don't agree with socialism.
Time for Labour supporters who aren't socialists to find another political home.
The Labour deserters could join the Lib Dems and turn it into the Social Democrat party - which many have already started to do.
Alternatively they could start up a new spin off party. What would it be called?
The Liberal Elite; Islington Larks; The Metropolitan Party; The Soft Centre; New Labour?
I didn't vote. But if I had it would have been on the basis of what was written on the referendum "to leave the EU". What happened after that was always going to be down to the government of the day, as I said as some length before the referendum. If you don't like what the government of the day does, you vote for a different one, THAT is sovereignty.
As has been said many times, both sides were broad coalitions of voters who had varying concerns.
It's tiresome to consider half the country either stupid xenophobes or treacherous federalists.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
And Brexit will not have "happened" in its entirety any time in the next decade
Don't forget - we have always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it to you. No offence.
So based upon a whim and a wing and a prayer, people decided they didn't like the EU? Of course not; as @DecrepitJohnL has also pointed out, there was an official Leave campaign and people had every right to think that what they said would transpire. Vote Leave folk are actually in government now, you know.
And as for fisheries, surely...SURELY...the very essence of sovereignty is to control our waters?!? And now you are saying - fine, doesn't matter, the promise by Vote Leave wasn't worth the paper it was printed upon.
I think a lot of people, especially in the media, forget this will be a negotiation. You don't just demand what you want and get it. Some things will be achieved, some things won't.
Anyway, I'd better get some work done.
Although I have been thinking of an alternative way to make a living.
1) Move to Northern Ireland.
2) Turn the heating up to maximum.
3) Profit!
'Labour Has Only Got One Ball......'
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
But you know that.
https://twitter.com/SnoozeInBrief/status/831884699836567553
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/831843997341646848
On Joff's article, I think he overestimates the importance of ideology, just as people on the far left do, and his wing of the party needs to avoid trying to dominate and exclude anyone to the left of Liz Kendall - there are lots of us who would fight that, just as the far left ultimately realised that we wouldn't have supported a deselection strategy.
What people everywhere want (and feel they aren't currently getting from Labour) is a sense of decisive competence associated with fairness to people like themselves.They are quite willing to look at people nominally on the left or the right if they think they see that - which is what Trump had going for him, and the reason why I think the current chaos will damage him more than all his locker-room talk.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/nov/16/borgen-is-back-john-robinson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38979114
Maybe they should just stage a series of elimination hustings with Andrew Neil grilling each of the candidates in turn.
Or draft in Lloyd Webber an have an entire BBC series of You Could be Leader ?
If Balls did put his name forward for one of them, he ought to be open from Day 1 about doing so in order to challenge Corbyn. The question would be inevitable and any other answer would sound false and would taint him with implied support for Corbyn.
Do you not "believe that collectivism, redistribution and solidarity at home and abroad remain principles around which coherent, relevant policy can be built"?
When I talk about putting Britain's interests first I do not mean Britain taking advantage of others in more difficulty than ourselves. But I do mean that British politicians should see it as their priority to make life better for the people in Britain. Whereas some politicians seem to think that it is more important to show their concern for people in other countries. And that can easily morph into an apparent disdain for the concerns of people here. Charity starts at home. So should politics.
Too many politicians appear to have modeled themselves on Mrs Jellaby from Bleak House. And when Dickens created her he was satirizing people like her not holding her up as a model to be followed.
https://twitter.com/progressonline/status/831889308151869440
What Labour needs now is leadership. The first person to stand up, look like and act like a leader will get the job. it might yet be Corbyn by default if no-one else is prepared to take on that challenge.
Overall, there's about a 20 point favourability gap vs the Conservatives except in London & Scotland (draws) and among the young and Remain voters where Labour are well ahead. Conservatives have crushing leads among Leavers (77 point difference), over 50s (34 points), over 65s (89 points) which might be expected, a 23 point lead in the Midlands, 20 points among C2DE voters (a draw with ABC1s!) and even a narrow 2 point lead in the North might not:
- Net Favourable (Cons) (Fieldwork 2/3 Feb)
OA: -29 (-10)
Leave: -59 (+18)
Remain: -9 (-34)
Con: -80 (+70)
Lab: +39 (-69)
LibD: -54 (-31)
UKIP: -81 (=)
M: -37 (-15)
F: -24 (-5)
18-24: +12 (-28)
25-49: -18 (-23)
50-65: -42 (-8)
65+: -62 (+27)
ABC1: -29 (-8)
C2DE: -31 (-11)
Lon: -15 (-15)
RoS: -37 (+6)
Mid/W: -33 (-10)
North: -19 (-17)
Scot: -40 (-43)
Is the trip carbon neutral ?
Are the leaflets printed on recyclable paper ?
I'm keen to take up the offer but I need to know that UKIP are in tune with my ethical considerations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38984947
"Yes, there is a vegan option. You can f*** off."
He has an irritating nasal whine. She has a soft speech impediment.
The sovereignty vote was about telling *our* politicians to stop giving powers away when they had no authority to do so.
I'm fine if they discuss a policy with their partners in Europe or NATO or Timbuktoo. So long as I get to hold them directly accountable for the outcome.
"We agreed to do X" is very different to "A majority of other countries voted to do X and therefore we must do it"
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
What intrigues me on a daily basis (luckily enough only on PB) is that people on here on the one hand say that it's up to the government, and yet selectively pick bits and bobs of VLTC (and other) campaign promises which they believe are somehow red lines. Theresa May has chosen immigration as one such and she is probably in tune with the majority of Leave voters. But Leavers can't have their cake and eat it (unlike the UK). Either it is up to the government in which case let them do what they want (maintain free movement, remain in the single market, etc); or let them follow the official Leave manifesto.
It surfaced again today with the CFP with one notable PB Leaver saying that if there was no change in that area, it would be fine. Well I can't think of a better example of sovereignty than controlling your own waters plus it was in the VLTC manifesto, but he didn't seem to think it mattered and...it was up to the government...