Have had a read through the thread, I notice one dimension that is missing in all this.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
Well they waste their money. Letting McCluskey select a leader is like the Christians in Rome choose between eaten by tigers or lions. His personal preferences - a left wing "socialist" candidate - appear to trump electability when it comes to choice. Anyone betting against McCluskey's choice of Leader in the last decade would have got rich.
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
I have always felt that the Unions should focus on their members and be out of politics completely. I have always viewed the Union Payments as something akin to "Cash for Questions".
Unions focus on their members precisely by being in politics.
ISTM that they focus on their leaderships and activists not the members, who are just money pumps and cannon fodder.
For at least 2 Elections now (2010 and 2015) Unite have had polling showing that their members have voted for other parties more than for Labour.
I don't disagree with that. I was just pointing out that Unions believe that being political is in the interests of the members, but I'm not saying that they necessarily back the correct party!
Heh. You beat my non-partisanning update:
It is about time their leadership spent their time addressing all politicians rather than trying to treat Labour as house-servants.
Sadly, I doubt very much we will see a Corbyn GE campaign unless May goes to the polls this year.
How do you expect him to be removed? I suggested a method yesterday but it would require proper organisation by the PLP to effect. I might offer a threader to @MikeSmithson and @TSE on the topic...
I expect the unions to engineer a removal/retirement of some description. There may well be a deal to allow another left candidate. Who knows. But unions are not this stupid - they can't allow Corbyn to wreck the chances of a Labour government in 2025.
Labour moderates need to be clear that if the left want a deal to have their candidate on the ballot paper, it isn't because they want to 'broaden the debate'; it is because they want that candidate to win.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits.
This is the bit that doesn't happen unless you can organize the girls in the LOL t-shirts. He didn't quit when basically the entire parliamentary party voted that they had no confidence in him, and he doesn't oppose the government anyway, so why would he care if they set up a rival parliamentary group?
Don't know the full "in's and out's" with this channel but since all the "Fake News" hullabaloo Google seem to be VERY aggressively deleting channels from their YouTube platform and websites from their search engine as well as throwing a lot of websites out of their AdSense programe.
I think the ins and outs are a longstanding policy of Youtube to preemptively delete rather than recognise the "critique and review" exceptions in copyright law, plus a more aggressive recent policy.
Plus there is a "3 strikes and you are banned" policy.
I stopped using Youtube for most things when they deleted my copy of the video showing MEPs coming in to sign in to fiddle their allowances on Friday mornings, complete with suitcases to go straight to the airport.
I usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
The Court Jester gets a lot of latitude. 'Twas ever thus....
It does feel like there is one set of rules for the Lidl Ludlum and another for everyone else.
Don't know the full "in's and out's" with this channel but since all the "Fake News" hullabaloo Google seem to be VERY aggressively deleting channels from their YouTube platform and websites from their search engine as well as throwing a lot of websites out of their AdSense programe.
I think the ins and outs are a longstanding policy of Youtube to preemptively delete rather than recognise the "critique and review" exceptions in copyright law, plus a more aggressive recent policy.
Plus there is a "3 strikes and you are banned" policy.
I stopped using Youtube for most things when they deleted my copy of the video showing MEPs coming in to sign in to fiddle their allowances on Friday mornings, complete with suitcases to go straight to the airport.
Perhaps a new video platform will "rise" before much longer. YouTube/Google have had a very long run but nothing lasts forever...
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
You can't just leave that hanging there, either repost it or give us a link.
If it involves a young Vietnamese woman in a LOL T-shirt it may not work as smoothly as you think, he's going to be on the lookout for that one.
Bojabob said: Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
That's far too complex and still ends up with Lisa Nandy being put forward as Labour's candidate for PM.
That's been obvious for a couple of weeks - The fact that it's Con (Major/Osborne) and Lab (Blair and Mandy) shows that REMAIN/Britain Stronger In are still in business.
As someone once said; "We haven't gone away you know"!
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Have had a read through the thread, I notice one dimension that is missing in all this.
No one has mentioned Labour's "owners" - The Unions.
I do not think the Unions will be keen on losing their political arm, especially given the amount they pay for it ...
Well they waste their money. Letting McCluskey select a leader is like the Christians in Rome choose between eaten by tigers or lions. His personal preferences - a left wing "socialist" candidate - appear to trump electability when it comes to choice. Anyone betting against McCluskey's choice of Leader in the last decade would have got rich.
If the Unions want to choose a Leader, they need to smarten up their act and modernise the way they choose one..
I have always felt that the Unions should focus on their members and be out of politics completely. I have always viewed the Union Payments as something akin to "Cash for Questions".
Unions focus on their members precisely by being in politics.
ISTM that they focus on their leaderships and activists not the members, who are just money pumps and cannon fodder.
For at least 2 Elections now (2010 and 2015) Unite have had polling showing that their members have voted for other parties more than for Labour.
I don't disagree with that. I was just pointing out that Unions believe that being political is in the interests of the members, but I'm not saying that they necessarily back the correct party!
Heh. You beat my non-partisanning update:
It is about time their leadership spent their time addressing all politicians rather than trying to treat Labour as house-servants.
Was not Labour set up to be the political voice of the trades union movement? Although the mass industrial working class has pretty much gone the way of all flesh and the workplace looks very different now to the early 20th century, for those committed unionists it is probably unthinkable that they should not support Labour and Labour should not support them. There is more than a hundred years of tradition and myth built in and that is not going to be shifted easily.
That's one of the most curious features of modern politics. Historically, politicians have tried to win as much support from as many different groups as possible. But, in our era, you get politicians who make no attempt to hide their contempt for large sections of the electorate.
It does seem to be a peculiarity of modern politics. I wonder if it is partly driven by modern media, in the past politicians were often criticised for trying to be "All things to all men" by saying different things to different groups in different places. Modern media, and social media, makes it much harder to get away with such campaigning when every contradictory position will be exposed to scrutiny. So perhaps instead we see a deliberate dismissal of some groups in an attempt to shore up the support of supportive groups.
Personally I would have thought that it's best to avoid being rude about bits of the electorate even if you can't offer them what they want.
As is frequently the case, it's much worse in the USA than it is here. My impression is that large numbers of Republicans and Democrats view their political opponents as subhuman. They organise boycotts of companies that are owned by, or employ, people whose views they dislike.
Indeed. I thought the Kellogg's boycott was particularly weird... Maybe we will end up with republican and democratic products for people to use!
Yup, seems much simpler and more practical. Anecdotally, there's a lot less organic Corbyn defence bobbing around my social media streams than there used to be. If Owen Smith had made his run now I think there's a decent chance he'd have won. More so Ed Balls, who has a better claim to competence and electability.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
The simplest explanation is probably the right one. They presumably think there's an impending catastrophe for the country and they feel duty-bound as senior statesmen to try to avert it.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
Mr. Gin, it's possible. If current social media giants (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook) are seen to be politically slanted, those not welcome have the critical mass of numbers necessary to found and support new alternatives that do basically the same thing.
That's one of the most curious features of modern politics. Historically, politicians have tried to win as much support from as many different groups as possible. But, in our era, you get politicians who make no attempt to hide their contempt for large sections of the electorate.
It does seem to be a peculiarity of modern politics. I wonder if it is partly driven by modern media, in the past politicians were often criticised for trying to be "All things to all men" by saying different things to different groups in different places. Modern media, and social media, makes it much harder to get away with such campaigning when every contradictory position will be exposed to scrutiny. So perhaps instead we see a deliberate dismissal of some groups in an attempt to shore up the support of supportive groups.
Personally I would have thought that it's best to avoid being rude about bits of the electorate even if you can't offer them what they want.
As is frequently the case, it's much worse in the USA than it is here. My impression is that large numbers of Republicans and Democrats view their political opponents as subhuman. They organise boycotts of companies that are owned by, or employ, people whose views they dislike.
The data in this first edition of Performance Tracker shows that:
The 2010 Spending Review* was largely successful in terms of the Government’s stated objectives. Originally viewed as a one-off period of pain following the 2008 financial crisis, before an economic recovery led to a return of business-as-usual, the 2010–15 spending reductions took place after several years of investment and growth. At first, government succeeded in enhancing the performance of a range of services, maintaining their scope and quality while sharply cutting or controlling spending.
- The police service successfully implemented large spending reductions between 2010 and 2015. Despite fewer police officers on the ground and signs of stress in the workforce, public confidence in the service grew.
- Violence in prisons remained level up to 2013, despite an 18% reduction in spending and a 14% reduction in frontline staff.
- In schools and hospitals, where spending growth was constrained, the data suggests modest improvements in efficiency, where services absorbed rising pupil and patient numbers respectively.
However, the Government is struggling to successfully implement the 2015 Spending Review. Even before the 2015 Review, there were clear signs of mounting pressures in public services.
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
You can't just leave that hanging there, either repost it or give us a link.
If it involves a young Vietnamese woman in a LOL T-shirt it may not work as smoothly as you think, he's going to be on the lookout for that one.
Bojabob said: Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
That's far too complex and still ends up with Lisa Nandy being put forward as Labour's candidate for PM.
I would actually prefer that David but my (admittedly complex) plan keeps the left on board and contains an additional threat to Corbyn. It's by no means certain Balls would beat Corbyn in a straight fight, given the collective delusion of the membership.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
The response from Leavers has so far consisted of:
"Blair speaks?" "BURN HIM" "Major speaks?" "QUARTER THE TRAITOR"
I expect George Osborne's intervention will receive an equally measured response.
The idea that their expressed concerns might actually be engaged with is obviously way too wacky.
We're spoilt. Not only is Labour providing us with the most entertaining political self-immolation in living memory, but UKIP is bravely coming up from behind and looks well set to outdo them.
Mr. Gin, it's possible. If current social media giants (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook) are seen to be politically slanted, those not welcome have the critical mass of numbers necessary to found and support new alternatives that do basically the same thing.
I'm always amazed how Guido manages to monetize his website partly through Google AdSense. Only explanation must be that he must make a LOT of money for them because otherwise they wouldn't tolerate such a controversial website (half the comments people post alone would be enough to get most websites banned lol)
Don't know the full "in's and out's" with this channel but since all the "Fake News" hullabaloo Google seem to be VERY aggressively deleting channels from their YouTube platform and websites from their search engine as well as throwing a lot of websites out of their AdSense programe.
I think the ins and outs are a longstanding policy of Youtube to preemptively delete rather than recognise the "critique and review" exceptions in copyright law, plus a more aggressive recent policy.
Plus there is a "3 strikes and you are banned" policy.
I stopped using Youtube for most things when they deleted my copy of the video showing MEPs coming in to sign in to fiddle their allowances on Friday mornings, complete with suitcases to go straight to the airport.
Perhaps a new video platform will "rise" before much longer. YouTube/Google have had a very long run but nothing lasts forever...
Vimeo and Daily Motion are both recruiting a lot of techies here in NYC. YouTube seems to be getting more into legal music videos, competiting with the likes of Spotify.
It wouldn't surprise me if Osborne/Blair and Major had been having communication with contacts within the EU as well.
Here's what I think the EU game plan is: 2 years of negotiations. At the end, there are two deals on the table. One is ultra basic deal - "crap" - and expensive with lots of noises on consequences. The other is EEA with four freedoms, possibly with some temporary sweetener on free movement.
The British Remain politicians are setting the tent up for the latter. They hope the economics and public opinion will push the U.K. Government *and* parliament to opt for the latter, thus nominally respecting the vote of the EU ref but keeping us very firmly in the EU economic orbit.
Their hope would be that, over time, the UK gets frustrated at having no say in the rules and a new political appetite can be built in the U.K. to rejoin.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
I am not sure what they expect to achieve by rehashing the "project fear" type arguments that were their stock in trade before the referendum. The people have voted, the Commons have voted, the Lords are voting (I see Hain's amendment was lost last night), HMG think they have a plan (as per white paper) that they are starting to implement. What is the point of returning to arguments that may have been valid before June 23rd? What do they think their pronouncements will achieve?
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
The response from Leavers has so far consisted of:
"Blair speaks?" "BURN HIM" "Major speaks?" "QUARTER THE TRAITOR"
I expect George Osborne's intervention will receive an equally measured response.
The idea that their expressed concerns might actually be engaged with is obviously way too wacky.
I think the problem is that it's the same old voices trotting out the same old messages that we heard for months this time last year.
If it was someone new (say a former LEAVER) saying something original it would be more interesting.
That Tory LEAVE MP that quit his seat because he didn't want to be part of a government that left the single market was quite interesting for example.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
It seems to be a snowflaky definition based on how liked they are.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
Ozzy is perhaps the exception, but he has had his legacy called into question by the current regime. He might well be the future of the Tory party, but at the minute, his star has waned. The rest are all definitely yesterday's men. That doesn't make them wrong, or misguided, but they are all wedded to the old politics. Nick Clegg used to talk about the new politics, and I think a lot of the population are trying to find it. However it turns out.
Don't know the full "in's and out's" with this channel but since all the "Fake News" hullabaloo Google seem to be VERY aggressively deleting channels from their YouTube platform and websites from their search engine as well as throwing a lot of websites out of their AdSense programe.
I think the ins and outs are a longstanding policy of Youtube to preemptively delete rather than recognise the "critique and review" exceptions in copyright law, plus a more aggressive recent policy.
Plus there is a "3 strikes and you are banned" policy.
I stopped using Youtube for most things when they deleted my copy of the video showing MEPs coming in to sign in to fiddle their allowances on Friday mornings, complete with suitcases to go straight to the airport.
Perhaps a new video platform will "rise" before much longer. YouTube/Google have had a very long run but nothing lasts forever...
Vimeo and Daily Motion are both recruiting a lot of techies here in NYC. YouTube seems to be getting more into legal music videos, competiting with the likes of Spotify.
Well I tried to watch a couple of Beatles music videos on YouTube the other week and saw they'd been taken down due to copyright or something?
That's one of the most curious features of modern politics. Historically, politicians have tried to win as much support from as many different groups as possible. But, in our era, you get politicians who make no attempt to hide their contempt for large sections of the electorate.
It does seem to be a peculiarity of modern politics. I wonder if it is partly driven by modern media, in the past politicians were often criticised for trying to be "All things to all men" by saying different things to different groups in different places. Modern media, and social media, makes it much harder to get away with such campaigning when every contradictory position will be exposed to scrutiny. So perhaps instead we see a deliberate dismissal of some groups in an attempt to shore up the support of supportive groups.
Personally I would have thought that it's best to avoid being rude about bits of the electorate even if you can't offer them what they want.
As is frequently the case, it's much worse in the USA than it is here. My impression is that large numbers of Republicans and Democrats view their political opponents as subhuman. They organise boycotts of companies that are owned by, or employ, people whose views they dislike.
Indeed. I thought the Kellogg's boycott was particularly weird... Maybe we will end up with republican and democratic products for people to use!
Maybe we should rename them cornflakes rather than snowflakes.
That is pretty damn amazing. Carswell's trolling has really got under their skin.
Sounds to me like Farage and Banks want to euthanize UKIP to clear the way for their new British Trumpite party. Decapitating Carswell is an obvious first step; after that Nuttall and the rest of the low-graders should be easily dispensed with.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
I don't think it is risky for them. Brexit is going ahead so they have nothing to lose. The question is whether it is good for the Brexit outcome and therefore the country. It might be if it forces the Government to justify their positions on the Brexit stuff and come up with some real answers. OTOH it might just cement the differences and make a successful Brexit even more impossible.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
The response from Leavers has so far consisted of:
"Blair speaks?" "BURN HIM" "Major speaks?" "QUARTER THE TRAITOR"
I expect George Osborne's intervention will receive an equally measured response.
The idea that their expressed concerns might actually be engaged with is obviously way too wacky.
Meanwhile Mr & Mrs Smith at 29 Acacia Avenue think that they gave their vote, saw the result, shrugged, and left the politicians to get on with carrying it out. They will probably not notice the vast majority of this posturing on either side. If it isn't carried out, they will probably notice, and the consequence for political careers at the next election may well be unfortunate, or even regrettable.
@Cyclefree. Goddammit. You're giving me a complex. You write so well. Excellent article.
However, much as it pains me, I do agree with @DavidL. The hard Left (with their unlovely opposites on the Right) are zealots. They have faith. Faith does not admit reason. There is always the 'Other' to blame for defeat. Just as millennial cults are immune to the failure of prophecy, so the Left will always look for external scapegoats, including, at the last, the electorate.
Labour now is like those pilots in the 447 flight from Brazil: about to crash, not really understanding why but incapable of doing anything about it.
You might be right. But what is your suggested mechanism for his removal Alastair? I posted yesterday with a possible method...
You can't just leave that hanging there, either repost it or give us a link.
If it involves a young Vietnamese woman in a LOL T-shirt it may not work as smoothly as you think, he's going to be on the lookout for that one.
Bojabob said: Ed Balls should go for Gorton and immediately put his name forward as a candidate for Labour caretaker leader in the Commons. He'd win the nomination there.
The PLP should then organise properly* and threaten the Corbynite leadership with splitting in the Commons with Balls as leader unless JC stands down.
In return, the PLP guarantee Rebecca Long-Bailey the nominations.
Corbynites have to agree or face becoming isolated in the Commons with a rightwinger (Balls) as Loto. Result: JC quits. RLB is on the ballot.
Balls then stands down to run as Lisa Nandy's running mate (for the Shadow Chancellor position).
Nandy beats Long-Bailey easily.
Nandy, from the left of the party, is installed as leader with Balls as Shadchan from the right.
Game on.
That's far too complex and still ends up with Lisa Nandy being put forward as Labour's candidate for PM.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims to make someone else pay the price for pandering to the incoherent expectations of their chosen audience of Brexiteers.
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
I have known 2 people who have personally been deported
The loonier Leavers' heads are going to explode at that concept.
It is very sad the way you are obsessed with putting words and emotions into the heads of other posters and so blinded by anger and hate over a lost vote that you feel the need to do it continually.
He wrote the truth brother. The right-wing headbanging trash that live on this blog will not be pleased.
I agree with SeanT's assessment of you.
Agreeing with SeanT's assessment of anything is dangerous, mainly because SeanT will vehemently hold the opposite opinion in a few days.
I usually find SeanT's comments entertaining and frequently contradictory but I am not sure why he is permitted to abuse other posters as he does on a daily basis. God knows what you have to do to get sent to the naughty step on PB.
Getting abused by SeanT is almost a rite of passage on this site. I got my first broadside from him years ago when I took mild exception to an idea he had put forward. He responded with a blistering attack accusing me of being the sort of chap whose political views were so far to the left that the communist party wouldn't have me even if I wasn't too thick to fill in the application form. He has mellowed a lot over the years.
I have never been insulted by SeanT. Only by Roger.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
I believe Richard was referring to the economic risks to the EU as much as those to the UK.
That is pretty damn amazing. Carswell's trolling has really got under their skin.
Sounds to me like Farage and Banks want to euthanize UKIP to clear the way for their new British Trumpite party. Decapitating Carswell is an obvious first step; after that Nuttall and the rest of the low-graders should be easily dispensed with.
Interesting theory .... Trump's flattery of them seems to have gone to their heads.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
The response from Leavers has so far consisted of:
"Blair speaks?" "BURN HIM" "Major speaks?" "QUARTER THE TRAITOR"
I expect George Osborne's intervention will receive an equally measured response.
The idea that their expressed concerns might actually be engaged with is obviously way too wacky.
I think the problem is that it's the same old voices trotting out the same old messages that we heard for months this time last year.
If it was someone new (say a former LEAVER) saying something original it would be more interesting.
That Tory LEAVE MP that quit his seat because he didn't want to be part of a government that left the single market was quite interesting for example.
Making sure that Brexit delivers the optimum outcome (given the plethora of constraints and obstacles) for the UK should be the responsibility of government. An effective opposition would be watching every step, every negotiation, every compromise like a hawk.
As there is no effective opposition, I for one am very glad that senior political figures are shining a light on the current shambles. It's not about stopping Brexit - that ship has sailed - but the 'winners' must represent the interests of ALL of the UK, not just the half that voted out.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Ukip’s former leader, initially tried to organise a peerage for Mr Farage, backed by Ukip peer Lord Willoughby de Broke, last July in the wake of the EU referendum. But these plans were dropped when the pair realised Mr Farage would have to resign as an MEP first before being allowed to accept the peerage.
That's not true (I know this having been involved in the fuss over the Kirkhope peerage and succession nomination for his MEP post).
Farage could accept a peerage and remain an MEP provided that he didn't take up his seat in the Lords.
Does one get more for being a member of the HoL or the European Parliament? I suppose there’s the expenses with the latter, but surely for someone living in West Kent (ahem) it costs more and takes longer to get to Brussels than Westminster.
Tory press will be using Labour MPs comments either from 2016 or from 2020 (you know the PLP, Blair, The King of Darkness and D Milliband types cant help themselves) throughout the campaign.
Betrayal will lead to a 2nd term of left leadership up to 2025
Far from the Socialists retreating in 2020 the Reed/Hunt trickle will have turned into a flood of flag of convenience non Socialist Liberal Elites who currently make electoral drfeat in 2020 certain.
BETRAYAL BETRAYAL and thrice BETRAYAL!!
Are you being serious? You think 'Socialist Liberal Elites' are why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020?
"Flag of convenience Non Socialist Liberal Elites" is what I said.
Their 2016 behaviour and ongoing non cooperation with Jezza IS why Corbyn is going to lose in 2020.
A poor excuse. As I noted the other day, a failure to take on and defeat your opponents, internal and external, is still a failure of leadership. That failure may be more reasonable depending on the scale of the challenges faced, but none of Corbyn's opponents internally owe him anything, his own behaviour as a serial rebel make that clear, and even if they have been unfair in not giving him a chance, he has failed to deal with that, and so has failed as a leader.
Maybe the task was beyond anyone, I don't know. But it is beyond him, and 'they won't let me lead' is not much of a defence.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
It's hard for the EU27 to do that under "normal" circumstances (see Canada) and they've made very clear that their priority here will be political: to see the UK gets a rum deal pour encourager les autres.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
Ozzy is perhaps the exception, but he has had his legacy called into question by the current regime. He might well be the future of the Tory party, but at the minute, his star has waned. The rest are all definitely yesterday's men. That doesn't make them wrong, or misguided, but they are all wedded to the old politics. Nick Clegg used to talk about the new politics, and I think a lot of the population are trying to find it. However it turns out.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
I believe Richard was referring to the economic risks to the EU as much as those to the UK.
I was well aware of that. The EU27 have so far made the assessment that those risks are less important than the coherence of the EU.
I'm highly sceptical that Britons telling them angrily that they're wrong are going to change their assessment.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
That's true, and that's one of the reasons I voted Remain. But we are where we are, and we are leaving. So the debate now needs to move to the ground Theresa May has quite rightly chosen as her preferred way of framing the debate: given that there will be the EU27 and a very large economy sitting right next to it, and that very large economy has made it very clear that it wants as free a trade deal as it can negotiate, and that it is overwhelmingly in both side's interests to agree such a deal, those who want to help must make that case to our EU friends. It's curious that both Leavers and Remainers seem to think that somehow the UK government can unilaterally set the parameters.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Ukip’s former leader, initially tried to organise a peerage for Mr Farage, backed by Ukip peer Lord Willoughby de Broke, last July in the wake of the EU referendum. But these plans were dropped when the pair realised Mr Farage would have to resign as an MEP first before being allowed to accept the peerage.
That is pretty damn amazing. Carswell's trolling has really got under their skin.
Sounds to me like Farage and Banks want to euthanize UKIP to clear the way for their new British Trumpite party. Decapitating Carswell is an obvious first step; after that Nuttall and the rest of the low-graders should be easily dispensed with.
Farage and Banks have totally lost it.
It's clear what they're about, now: overgrown children who want all the attention and praise lavished on themselves, and nobody else.
On Topic: Compare and contrast with IDS to Howard in 2003. IDS had the mandate, but the membership could see the damage an IDS-led election could do to their longterm prospects so they acquiesced in the coup. Yes, some wandered off to UKIP, but the bulk hung around and the pragmatic wing of the party held on, giving Cameron the base upon which to build his 'modernisation'. Labour's membership is the problem. Until they 'get it' about Corbyn, then there is no space for Balls or anyone else to be the new Michael Howard. That leaves a new party or a Real Labour Parliamentary grouping, allied to the LDs and the Tories' Remain Rump, as the only alternative. Blair's intervention could be seen as laying the ground for an SDP Mark 2, but who would lead it? The Gorton by-election at least raises the possibility of Balls playing that role. My blog from last week. http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/sdp-mark-2
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
Ozzy is perhaps the exception, but he has had his legacy called into question by the current regime. He might well be the future of the Tory party, but at the minute, his star has waned. The rest are all definitely yesterday's men. That doesn't make them wrong, or misguided, but they are all wedded to the old politics. Nick Clegg used to talk about the new politics, and I think a lot of the population are trying to find it. However it turns out.
They already have two strikes against them: their arguments made by this gaggle before the Referendum were extremely poor and resulted in them losing; their predictions of fire and brimstone for the immediate aftermath was extremely poor and resulted in them losing credibility. We should all pray that Brexit is a resounding success, so that on the "three strikes and you're out" principle, they can all slink off, never to be heard from again.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
The response from Leavers has so far consisted of:
"Blair speaks?" "BURN HIM" "Major speaks?" "QUARTER THE TRAITOR"
I expect George Osborne's intervention will receive an equally measured response.
The idea that their expressed concerns might actually be engaged with is obviously way too wacky.
I think the problem is that it's the same old voices trotting out the same old messages that we heard for months this time last year.
If it was someone new (say a former LEAVER) saying something original it would be more interesting.
That Tory LEAVE MP that quit his seat because he didn't want to be part of a government that left the single market was quite interesting for example.
It was incoherent given that he was Quote open during the campaign that we would leave the single market.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
Ozzy is perhaps the exception, but he has had his legacy called into question by the current regime. He might well be the future of the Tory party, but at the minute, his star has waned. The rest are all definitely yesterday's men. That doesn't make them wrong, or misguided, but they are all wedded to the old politics. Nick Clegg used to talk about the new politics, and I think a lot of the population are trying to find it. However it turns out.
Meanwhile Mr & Mrs Smith at 29 Acacia Avenue think that they gave their vote, saw the result, shrugged, and left the politicians to get on with carrying it out. They will probably not notice the vast majority of this posturing on either side. If it isn't carried out, they will probably notice, and the consequence for political careers at the next election may well be unfortunate, or even regrettable.
But it's not going to be like that. We didn't vote for a cataclysm, nor for a new order, but for a huge mess that will consume all our political energies for the next decade or more. Even Acacia Avenue will have an opinion, even if it's just "A plague on the lot of them!"
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
That's true, and that's one of the reasons I voted Remain. But we are where we are, and we are leaving.
It's not inevitable, and if any negotiated deal is not demonstrably better for the country than what we have now, then pragmatists like you have a duty to make the case to think again.
But the people voted without knowledge of the true terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
That's true, and that's one of the reasons I voted Remain. But we are where we are, and we are leaving. So the debate now needs to move to the ground Theresa May has quite rightly chosen as her preferred way of framing the debate: given that there will be the EU27 and a very large economy sitting right next to it, and that very large economy has made it very clear that it wants as free a trade deal as it can negotiate, and that it is overwhelmingly in both side's interests to agree such a deal, those who want to help must make that case to our EU friends. It's curious that both Leavers and Remainers seem to think that somehow the UK government can unilaterally set the parameters.
I don't. Theresa May can frame the debate however she likes but if the EU27 aren't biting, it ain't happening. And if it ain't happening, it's going to get very messy indeed.
It's hard for the EU27 to do that under "normal" circumstances (see Canada) and they've made very clear that their priority here will be political: to see the UK gets a rum deal pour encourager les autres.
Some of them are saying that, but they are being very foolish. The risks to the EU from economic damage of a messy Brexit are much greater than the risks of contagion. In any case it can be fudged to make it look as though we're getting a bad deal, even if we're not. There are many newspapers and politicians in the UK who will be more than happy to squeal and moan.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Genuine question: hiw do you think they will try to achieve their goal? I'm assuming that they want some practical outcome eg membership of the Single Market rather than simply warning of the dangers.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
I believe Richard was referring to the economic risks to the EU as much as those to the UK.
Once again, and rather ironically, the misconceptions on both sides about the negotiating objectives prove why we voted to Leave.
The EU is a political project, not an economic one.
The UK and EU are still making the same mistakes even in their divorce.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Ukip’s former leader, initially tried to organise a peerage for Mr Farage, backed by Ukip peer Lord Willoughby de Broke, last July in the wake of the EU referendum. But these plans were dropped when the pair realised Mr Farage would have to resign as an MEP first before being allowed to accept the peerage.
That's not true (I know this having been involved in the fuss over the Kirkhope peerage and succession nomination for his MEP post).
Farage could accept a peerage and remain an MEP provided that he didn't take up his seat in the Lords.
Does one get more for being a member of the HoL or the European Parliament? I suppose there’s the expenses with the latter, but surely for someone living in West Kent (ahem) it costs more and takes longer to get to Brussels than Westminster.
I think the Lords are amazingly economical. A chargeable rate of £300 per day for a retired expert?! (Plus I assume a few hotels and train fares.)
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
The point is, and I say this as a leaver, is that there a more issues regarding how we leave and what we end up with, so a blanket response of Leave won and remain lost does not help, even if Alistair Meeks and co are deliberately insulting.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Maybe, but I can't help feeling that they are addressing themselves to the wrong people. It is the EU27, not the UK government, who need to come to their senses over the economic risks. The UK government has been unambiguous in its aims for a smooth transition to a trade deal which allows tariff- and hassle-free trade between the UK and the EU.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
I believe Richard was referring to the economic risks to the EU as much as those to the UK.
I was well aware of that. The EU27 have so far made the assessment that those risks are less important than the coherence of the EU.
I'm highly sceptical that Britons telling them angrily that they're wrong are going to change their assessment.
I don't believe the EU member states have made any such assessment at the moment. It is clear that they are waiting for negotiations to start before deciding what position to take as individual countries. Exactly as would be expected.
The EU itself can huff and puff as much as it likes but it will be down to individual states to balance their own needs and desires
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
It does indeed. The thing is, it's quite risky for them. All the big old beasts coming out, trying to change the mind of the 52%ers could come across as very rich failed politicians trying to keep the old failed politics in place. We've had Peter Hain popping up today talking up trouble in Ireland due to borders. I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
In what way is Ozzy 'failed'? I'm not a supporter of his but that statement is almost impossible to justify.
Ozzy is perhaps the exception, but he has had his legacy called into question by the current regime. He might well be the future of the Tory party, but at the minute, his star has waned. The rest are all definitely yesterday's men. That doesn't make them wrong, or misguided, but they are all wedded to the old politics. Nick Clegg used to talk about the new politics, and I think a lot of the population are trying to find it. However it turns out.
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
That's true, and that's one of the reasons I voted Remain. But we are where we are, and we are leaving. So the debate now needs to move to the ground Theresa May has quite rightly chosen as her preferred way of framing the debate: given that there will be the EU27 and a very large economy sitting right next to it, and that very large economy has made it very clear that it wants as free a trade deal as it can negotiate, and that it is overwhelmingly in both side's interests to agree such a deal, those who want to help must make that case to our EU friends. It's curious that both Leavers and Remainers seem to think that somehow the UK government can unilaterally set the parameters.
What most worries me is the fact that we can set virtually none of the parameters, given the competing, often irrational, interests in the EU27, and the political discord in both France and Germany.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Genuine question: hiw do you think they will try to achieve their goal? I'm assuming that they want some practical outcome eg membership of the Single Market rather than simply warning of the dangers.
I think they only have the least chance of achieving their goal if they stick to their task. One-off warnings from each of them will be gibbered away. But if each returns regularly to their theme, gibbering won't be enough. As Lord Mandelson once said, if you haven't got sick of the sound of your own voice saying it, you haven't said it enough.
Tony Blair and Sir John Major are both very considerable figures and neither has an obvious axe to grind. Whatever the public think of each of them, they will take what they say seriously if they get as far as listening to the content (as opposed to registering that they spoke).
If they each just speak once, they're just getting their "I told you sos" lined up.
I don't. Theresa May can frame the debate however she likes but if the EU27 aren't biting, it ain't happening. And if it ain't happening, it's going to get very messy indeed.
Yes, that is certainly a very significant risk. There's not much the UK can do about it, though, if the EU27 want to shoot themselves in the foot by a scattergun pot-shot at Theresa May's £215 Russell & Bromley black suede flats with metal toe caps. That's why I think UK politicians and ex-politicians trying to avoid disaster should make the case, in public, to the EU. It has to be in public, because they can't go behind the PM's back and try to carry out some kind of parallel negotiation.
It's hard for the EU27 to do that under "normal" circumstances (see Canada) and they've made very clear that their priority here will be political: to see the UK gets a rum deal pour encourager les autres.
Some of them are saying that, but they are being very foolish. The risks to the EU from economic damage of a messy Brexit are much greater than the risks of contagion. In any case it can be fudged to make it look as though we're getting a bad deal, even if we're not. There are many newspapers and politicians in the UK who will be more than happy to squeal and moan.
Just because it would be very foolish (and it would) doesn't mean it won't happen. They are hyper emotional about The Project.
The threshold for agreement in the EU on anything is very high and I suspect the outcome on a deal will be the highest (or lowest, if you prefer) common denominator between them.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Well the "response" is; LEAVE won. REMAIN lost. So we're leaving?
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
The response from Leavers has so far consisted of:
"Blair speaks?" "BURN HIM" "Major speaks?" "QUARTER THE TRAITOR"
I expect George Osborne's intervention will receive an equally measured response.
The idea that their expressed concerns might actually be engaged with is obviously way too wacky.
I think the problem is that it's the same old voices trotting out the same old messages that we heard for months this time last year.
If it was someone new (say a former LEAVER) saying something original it would be more interesting.
That Tory LEAVE MP that quit his seat because he didn't want to be part of a government that left the single market was quite interesting for example.
It was incoherent given that he was Quote open during the campaign that we would leave the single market.
It looked pretty obvious to me that he was only Leave in as far as he had made a [probably necessary] commitment to the constituency association in order to get selected.
The incoherent and abusive gibbering in response shows just how much more accomplished those co-ordinating are than those who are being co-ordinated against.
Genuine question: hiw do you think they will try to achieve their goal? I'm assuming that they want some practical outcome eg membership of the Single Market rather than simply warning of the dangers.
I think they only have the least chance of achieving their goal if they stick to their task. One-off warnings from each of them will be gibbered away. But if each returns regularly to their theme, gibbering won't be enough. As Lord Mandelson once said, if you haven't got sick of the sound of your own voice saying it, you haven't said it enough.
Tony Blair and Sir John Major are both very considerable figures and neither has an obvious axe to grind. Whatever the public think of each of them, they will take what they say seriously if they get as far as listening to the content (as opposed to registering that they spoke).
If they each just speak once, they're just getting their "I told you sos" lined up.
Sounds about right. Achieving anything here would be very difficult, so i suspect these are more just 'I told you so's.
That is pretty damn amazing. Carswell's trolling has really got under their skin.
Sounds to me like Farage and Banks want to euthanize UKIP to clear the way for their new British Trumpite party. Decapitating Carswell is an obvious first step; after that Nuttall and the rest of the low-graders should be easily dispensed with.
I don't see much of a strategy behind this very public spat. If they want to take UKIP back it would be logical to attack Nuttall surely...?
I think Farage is enjoying being in US... Hanging with Donald and getting to pontificate on TV and in the paper when he wants... And trying to settle some scores.
The EU is a political project, not an economic one.
And the risks to the UK in leaving are political, not economic, all things being equal. The risks are existential.
I don't think the UK's existence is contingent upon its EU membership.
As I said last night, it complicates Scotland and NI - both of which pose their own challenges - but I'm far from convinced Scotland had an assured place long-term in the U.K. even if we'd said we'd Remain until hell froze over.
That is pretty damn amazing. Carswell's trolling has really got under their skin.
Sounds to me like Farage and Banks want to euthanize UKIP to clear the way for their new British Trumpite party. Decapitating Carswell is an obvious first step; after that Nuttall and the rest of the low-graders should be easily dispensed with.
I don't see much of a strategy behind this very public spat. If they want to take UKIP back it would be logical to attack Nuttall surely...?
I think Farage is enjoying being in US... Hanging with Donald and getting to pontificate on TV and in the paper when he wants... And trying to settle some scores.
If Douglas Carswell is no longer in UKIP, what exactly is left of that party? A few MEPs who are due to lose their jobs in two years' time and a handful of councillors who specialise in sexuality-based meteorology (and who may lose their jobs in an even shorter timeframe).
There's no need to deal with Mr Nuttall. He could quickly find himself an admiral without a navy. (Not that I am suggesting that Paul Nuttall has ever claimed to be an admiral.)
Yes, and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear on his pro-having cake and pro-eating it philosophy.
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
That's true, and that's one of the reasons I voted Remain. But we are where we are, and we are leaving. So the debate now needs to move to the ground Theresa May has quite rightly chosen as her preferred way of framing the debate: given that there will be the EU27 and a very large economy sitting right next to it, and that very large economy has made it very clear that it wants as free a trade deal as it can negotiate, and that it is overwhelmingly in both side's interests to agree such a deal, those who want to help must make that case to our EU friends. It's curious that both Leavers and Remainers seem to think that somehow the UK government can unilaterally set the parameters.
What most worries me is the fact that we can set virtually none of the parameters, given the competing, often irrational, interests in the EU27, and the political discord in both France and Germany.
It's hard for the EU27 to do that under "normal" circumstances (see Canada) and they've made very clear that their priority here will be political: to see the UK gets a rum deal pour encourager les autres.
Some of them are saying that, but they are being very foolish. The risks to the EU from economic damage of a messy Brexit are much greater than the risks of contagion. In any case it can be fudged to make it look as though we're getting a bad deal, even if we're not. There are many newspapers and politicians in the UK who will be more than happy to squeal and moan.
It's not as black and white as that. The EU will be open, I think, to agreement to avoid anything that seriously damages their interest. They are not interested in a "good deal" at this stage. Neither side looks to be interested in heavy negotiations right now (although David Davis pretends he is). That may change later. For now, the UK government will more or less take whatever they get from the EU, maybe pointing out a few things the EU might want to do in its interest. Then they will decide whether to call it a huge success or blame the EU for its intransigence. The EU is acting rationally, for now at least.
That is pretty damn amazing. Carswell's trolling has really got under their skin.
Sounds to me like Farage and Banks want to euthanize UKIP to clear the way for their new British Trumpite party. Decapitating Carswell is an obvious first step; after that Nuttall and the rest of the low-graders should be easily dispensed with.
I don't see much of a strategy behind this very public spat. If they want to take UKIP back it would be logical to attack Nuttall surely...?
I think Farage is enjoying being in US... Hanging with Donald and getting to pontificate on TV and in the paper when he wants... And trying to settle some scores.
If Douglas Carswell is no longer in UKIP, what exactly is left of that party? A few MEPs who are due to lose their jobs in two years' time and a handful of councillors who specialise in sexuality-based meteorology (and who may lose their jobs in an even shorter timeframe).
There's no need to deal with Mr Nuttall. He could quickly find himself an admiral without a navy. (Not that I am suggesting that Paul Nuttall has ever claimed to be an admiral.)
Couple of lords too - they can bring in a few hundred a day if they attend often enough.
Wasn't 2013 a 'breakout' year for UKIP in local government? (Not round my ways 1 out of 98 in a rural county though) Be interesting to see what happens, as why does anyone need them right now?
Mr. Patrick, must say, I still think Le Pen stands far less chance of winning than her odds suggest. The two-round system is handy for those not on the political fringes.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Ukip’s former leader, initially tried to organise a peerage for Mr Farage, backed by Ukip peer Lord Willoughby de Broke, last July in the wake of the EU referendum. But these plans were dropped when the pair realised Mr Farage would have to resign as an MEP first before being allowed to accept the peerage.
...so in the real world, the slow progress in an amended article 50 continues
Astonishing that the Express can describe losing access to the Single Market as a 'victory'. All right - once the zealots seized control with their hard demands on immigration etc. it was never likely to be retained, but I'd have thought even they would term it a necessary sacrifice. A victory?
Comments
It is about time their leadership spent their time addressing all politicians rather than trying to treat Labour as house-servants.
Plus there is a "3 strikes and you are banned" policy.
I stopped using Youtube for most things when they deleted my copy of the video showing MEPs coming in to sign in to fiddle their allowances on Friday mornings, complete with suitcases to go straight to the airport.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/836538037844738048
This all looks very co-ordinated.
What's wrong with: Balls wins Gorton, challenges Corbyn in 2018, wins. ?
As someone once said; "We haven't gone away you know"!
I thought the Kellogg's boycott was particularly weird...
Maybe we will end up with republican and democratic products for people to use!
I'm not saying they're wrong, I don't think Brexit will be a cakewalk, but these failed politicians might overplay their hand.
At the moment Theresa May seems to be the only one that "get's" it. No wonder she just won a seat that's been Labour since 1935...
I predicted Osborne would probably be next on here only yesterday.
Carswell's trolling has really got under their skin.
The data in this first edition of Performance Tracker shows that:
The 2010 Spending Review* was largely successful in terms of the Government’s stated objectives. Originally viewed as a one-off period of pain following the 2008 financial crisis, before an economic recovery led to a return of business-as-usual, the 2010–15 spending reductions took place after several years of investment and growth. At first, government succeeded in enhancing the performance of a range of services, maintaining their scope and quality while sharply cutting or controlling spending.
- The police service successfully implemented large spending reductions between 2010 and 2015. Despite fewer police officers on the ground and signs of stress in the workforce, public confidence in the service grew.
- Violence in prisons remained level up to 2013, despite an 18% reduction in spending and a 14% reduction in frontline staff.
- In schools and hospitals, where spending growth was constrained, the data suggests modest improvements in efficiency, where services absorbed rising pupil and patient numbers respectively.
However, the Government is struggling to successfully implement the 2015 Spending Review. Even before the 2015 Review, there were clear signs of mounting pressures in public services.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/performance-tracker-spring-2017/summary
"Blair speaks?" "BURN HIM"
"Major speaks?" "QUARTER THE TRAITOR"
I expect George Osborne's intervention will receive an equally measured response.
The idea that their expressed concerns might actually be engaged with is obviously way too wacky.
Too early to draw conclusions, but something upon which to keep an eye.
Here's what I think the EU game plan is: 2 years of negotiations. At the end, there are two deals on the table. One is ultra basic deal - "crap" - and expensive with lots of noises on consequences. The other is EEA with four freedoms, possibly with some temporary sweetener on free movement.
The British Remain politicians are setting the tent up for the latter. They hope the economics and public opinion will push the U.K. Government *and* parliament to opt for the latter, thus nominally respecting the vote of the EU ref but keeping us very firmly in the EU economic orbit.
Their hope would be that, over time, the UK gets frustrated at having no say in the rules and a new political appetite can be built in the U.K. to rejoin.
If it was someone new (say a former LEAVER) saying something original it would be more interesting.
That Tory LEAVE MP that quit his seat because he didn't want to be part of a government that left the single market was quite interesting for example.
https://twitter.com/70s_party/status/836544610621091841
Remoaners - this is the world the Leavers want to take you back too.....(before the invention of modern ant-acids too.....)
https://order-order.com/2017/02/28/corbyn-spent-two-hours-on-by-election-day-addressing-small-crowd-in-islington/
But the EU27 have different interests. The economic risks relating to Britain are not necessarily their highest priority as, to be fair, they have consistently made clear.
PS @Roger: I like you really!
As there is no effective opposition, I for one am very glad that senior political figures are shining a light on the current shambles. It's not about stopping Brexit - that ship has sailed - but the 'winners' must represent the interests of ALL of the UK, not just the half that voted out.
Maybe the task was beyond anyone, I don't know. But it is beyond him, and 'they won't let me lead' is not much of a defence.
I'm highly sceptical that Britons telling them angrily that they're wrong are going to change their assessment.
It's clear what they're about, now: overgrown children who want all the attention and praise lavished on themselves, and nobody else.
Labour's membership is the problem. Until they 'get it' about Corbyn, then there is no space for Balls or anyone else to be the new Michael Howard. That leaves a new party or a Real Labour Parliamentary grouping, allied to the LDs and the Tories' Remain Rump, as the only alternative.
Blair's intervention could be seen as laying the ground for an SDP Mark 2, but who would lead it? The Gorton by-election at least raises the possibility of Balls playing that role.
My blog from last week.
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/sdp-mark-2
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2017/2/28/david-cameron-wants-to-use-blockchain-technology-to-fight-government-corruption
But the people voted without knowledge of the true terms of Brexit. As these terms become clear, it is their right to change their mind.
Our mission is to persuade them to do so.
The EU is a political project, not an economic one.
The UK and EU are still making the same mistakes even in their divorce.
The EU itself can huff and puff as much as it likes but it will be down to individual states to balance their own needs and desires
Ministers did not offer Nissan cash compensation for Brexit, executive insists
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/manufacturing/news/83744/ministers-did-not-offer-nissan-cash-compensation-brexit
Tony Blair and Sir John Major are both very considerable figures and neither has an obvious axe to grind. Whatever the public think of each of them, they will take what they say seriously if they get as far as listening to the content (as opposed to registering that they spoke).
If they each just speak once, they're just getting their "I told you sos" lined up.
The threshold for agreement in the EU on anything is very high and I suspect the outcome on a deal will be the highest (or lowest, if you prefer) common denominator between them.
If they want to take UKIP back it would be logical to attack Nuttall surely...?
I think Farage is enjoying being in US... Hanging with Donald and getting to pontificate on TV and in the paper when he wants... And trying to settle some scores.
As I said last night, it complicates Scotland and NI - both of which pose their own challenges - but I'm far from convinced Scotland had an assured place long-term in the U.K. even if we'd said we'd Remain until hell froze over.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/772887/house-of-lords-brexit-debate-single-market
...so in the real world, the slow progress in an amended article 50 continues
With just two tests of four days each, he's lost almost a quarter of his pre-season preparation time.
There's no need to deal with Mr Nuttall. He could quickly find himself an admiral without a navy. (Not that I am suggesting that Paul Nuttall has ever claimed to be an admiral.)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/millionaire-migrants-countries-rich-people-are-flocking
Something is very badly fucked up in France. That means an election 'surprise' may not be all that surprising the morning after.
Wasn't 2013 a 'breakout' year for UKIP in local government? (Not round my ways 1 out of 98 in a rural county though) Be interesting to see what happens, as why does anyone need them right now?
Economically it doesn't matter whether they give you money, or whether they let you off money that you would have had to give them.