If Michael, Lord Jopling of Ainderby Quernhow is reading this he will be amazed as to how many mentions he has got on PB this morning compared to his uber-proletarian Successor, Fart Minor.
Which way has Joppers been voting on the Brexit Bill ? He used to be very pro-Heseltine and pro-EEC
Ken Clarke's comments about TM being a "bloody difficult woman" sort of echoed by Heseltine's treatment - should be interesting to see how things pan out for the next votes...
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
How on Earth is anybody supposed to take that seriously? Of course he has met her. Apart from anything else, they overlapped as MPs for 4 years.
A very quick google suggests it might be true: "No results found for "michael heseltine met theresa may"." (Similar results for 'meets', and variations.)
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
In what world does this make pro-Remain Tories less likely to back the government? This shows there are consequences for doing so and Theresa won't roll over when they rebel over a fundamental point of government policy.
Which pro-Remain MPs who might rebel do you think have serious hopes of advancement under Theresa May? If you're never going to be favoured, rebelling is consequence free.
You might get deselected. That's one incentive to stay in line.
I'm enjoying all the kippers giving Conservative MPs lectures on party loyalty. I'd thought only George Galloway had that much brass neck, but it seems not.
Except of course that the Kippers had the courage of their convictions and the good manners to leave the Tory party. So your comparison fails.
In what world does this make pro-Remain Tories less likely to back the government? This shows there are consequences for doing so and Theresa won't roll over when they rebel over a fundamental point of government policy.
Which pro-Remain MPs who might rebel do you think have serious hopes of advancement under Theresa May? If you're never going to be favoured, rebelling is consequence free.
You might get deselected. That's one incentive to stay in line.
I'm enjoying all the kippers giving Conservative MPs lectures on party loyalty. I'd thought only George Galloway had that much brass neck, but it seems not.
Except of course that the Kippers had the courage of their convictions and the good manners to leave the Tory party. So your comparison fails.
In other words, they got their disloyalty in first.
The lords haven't sold me on the practicality of this latest amendment yet. The other one seems more justifiable as a gesture even though it shows our hand, but given the process I'm not convinced by this one.
I agree. A very dangerous enemy indeed. Quite a hero for those of us who loathed Maggie. The Tories are reverting to type which is something I didn't expect.
The first green shoots that suggest Brexit is unravelling which is far more important than party politics and ultimately good news for all of us
Ken Clarke's comments about TM being a "bloody difficult woman" sort of echoed by Heseltine's treatment - should be interesting to see how things pan out for the next votes...
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
"perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done"
Well not quite. He is reported to have written down Prime Minister as the job he wanted as a student. He made Deputy PM. Not quite the full cigar, but not bad.
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
I do enjoy Charles's regular reminders about how he is in no way at all - and cannot be remotely considered - a member of the establishment.
Thatcher didn’t dare sack Heseltine. But now May has done so. His position as an adviser was thus more than decorative and he will be a loss. But the Prime Minister clearly felt that she could not have him both exercising a senior role within it while also supporting a move whose logic is to bring it down, or try to (which is the sum of the pathetic Lords amendment to the Article 50 Bill which he backed yesterday).
There is an echo of Westland. That time round, he got ahead of Margaret Thatcher by announcing his resignation before the Government machine could grind into action. And this time, he duly got ahead of May, too, popping up for interviews yesterday evening before Downing Street could get its line out. But there is a difference. Thatcher didn’t dare sack him. May now has.
The one-time Lion King has lost most of his teeth, of course, and the Prime Minister, unlike her predecessor, runs few risks by putting him out to grass. Advisers are not Ministers, and so Heseltine’s defenestration was not formally necessary. But May clearly felt that a signal must be sent pour encourager les autres. As someone or other once put it, there is no alternative.
Then why hold a referendum? And even more importantly, why vote overwhelmingly for it and agree to abide by the result? Or is lying an acceptable form of Parliamentary democracy?
Hmm ... I may have answered my own question with that last bit.
As I've said before the JAMs thing is self-defining. There are people on 50 or even 70K who say they are JAMs (what with the kids ski trips and the mortgage on five bedroomed detached, a new car every three years etc etc).
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
Can anyone honestly give me another reason?
Yes, because we are a Parliamentary democracy.
yes - and this parliament chose to refer to the people on this important constitutional matter and the people said leave and they said it with their eyes open, it is now for the executive to carry out the will of the people and not for parliament to block it
Yes, it really is striking, the contrast between an 83-year-old giant who stands up for what he believes is right and best for the country, and the sycophantic rear-end licking umpa-lumpas of the modern generation.
Yes, it really is striking, the contrast between an 83-year-old giant who stands up for what he believes is right and best for the country, and the sycophantic rear-end licking umpa-lumpas of the modern generation.
Heseltine has never stood up for what is right for the country. Only what was right for the advancement of the European project.
Very surprising that Labour are so close to the Tories there.
Given the chasm that used to lie between Labour & the Tories - in favour of Labour on 'understands people like me' - the move away from the posh boys in the Tories has clearly borne fruit.....
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
Can anyone honestly give me another reason?
Yes, because we are a Parliamentary democracy.
yes - and this parliament chose to refer to the people on this important constitutional matter and the people said leave and they said it with their eyes open, it is now for the executive to carry out the will of the people and not for parliament to block it
I must have had a different ballot paper to you. How the process would be handled was not on the one I used.
Yes, it really is striking, the contrast between an 83-year-old giant who stands up for what he believes is right and best for the country, and the sycophantic rear-end licking umpa-lumpas of the modern generation.
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
Can anyone honestly give me another reason?
Yes, because we are a Parliamentary democracy.
yes - and this parliament chose to refer to the people on this important constitutional matter and the people said leave and they said it with their eyes open, it is now for the executive to carry out the will of the people and not for parliament to block it
I must have had a different ballot paper to you. How the process would be handled was not on the one I used.
the people didn't vote for the process to be blocked
How on Earth is anybody supposed to take that seriously? Of course he has met her. Apart from anything else, they overlapped as MPs for 4 years.
Nothing odd for a party grandee not to have met a newly elected MP, but then there’s all the party conferences and shindigs over the years as well? – Perhaps Heseltine being old school, meant the pair had never been formally introduced…
Yes, it really is striking, the contrast between an 83-year-old giant who stands up for what he believes is right and best for the country, and the sycophantic rear-end licking umpa-lumpas of the modern generation.
Then why hold a referendum? And even more importantly, why vote overwhelmingly for it and agree to abide by the result? Or is lying an acceptable form of Parliamentary democracy?
Hmm ... I may have answered my own question with that last bit.
We had a referendum because David Cameron was scared of losing votes to UKIP. We are a Parliamentary democracy.
Then why hold a referendum? And even more importantly, why vote overwhelmingly for it and agree to abide by the result? Or is lying an acceptable form of Parliamentary democracy?
Hmm ... I may have answered my own question with that last bit.
We had a referendum because David Cameron was scared of losing votes to UKIP. We are a Parliamentary democracy.
so that means you want to ignore the referendum result then. If the EU know that parliament can veto the final deal, then they will give us a shit deal knowing it will be rejected by parliament and thus keep us in the the EU against the wishes of the British people.
"...We see this all the time, this enacting of bigotry under the guise of tackling bigotry. Leave voters are bigots, say certain angry Remainers who display the most eye-watering bigotry towards ‘low-information’ Leavers and their allegedly bovine opinions.
People who criticise Islam are bigots, say some radical Islamists who are actually just intolerant of anti-Islam ‘blasphemy’. The bigotry of anti-bigotry is best summed up in the image of the Stepford Student — those campus censors who fume against people with unpopular views, and try to shut them down, on the basis that they’re ‘bigots’.
Imagine how little self-awareness they must have to behave like bigots, through expressing intolerance towards those who think differently, while posing as implacable foes of bigotry...
It's interesting to consider where this Brexit debate is heading. The sides seem more deeply entrenched and polarised. Feels like a showdown is inevitable. But what?
In what world does this make pro-Remain Tories less likely to back the government? This shows there are consequences for doing so and Theresa won't roll over when they rebel over a fundamental point of government policy.
Which pro-Remain MPs who might rebel do you think have serious hopes of advancement under Theresa May? If you're never going to be favoured, rebelling is consequence free.
You might get deselected. That's one incentive to stay in line.
I'm enjoying all the kippers giving Conservative MPs lectures on party loyalty. I'd thought only George Galloway had that much brass neck, but it seems not.
Except of course that the Kippers had the courage of their convictions and the good manners to leave the Tory party. So your comparison fails.
In other words, they got their disloyalty in first.
There is no disloyalty on leaving a party when that party no longer reflects your views. You seem to have a very warped moral compass when it comes to.politics.
Heseltine's departure may if anything increase the number of UKIP voters likely to switch to the Tories as was already evident in Copeland. While the country is still split on Brexit Tory voters are not with a clear majority having voted for it and Tory voters putting immigration control ahead of full single market access
Very surprising that Labour are so close to the Tories there.
Given the chasm that used to lie between Labour & the Tories - in favour of Labour on 'understands people like me' - the move away from the posh boys in the Tories has clearly borne fruit.....
Those would be the posh boys you supported enthusiastically and sycophantically until they were replaced by Theresa Corbyn.
It makes sense I think. The moderates aren't going anywhere and they understand TM has been dealt a tough hand. The Leadsom supporters on the right might topple her if they don't trust her on Brexit.
Don`t be so sure about that, Mr rkrkrk. A fair number of people are moving over from t he Conservative Party to the Lib Dems. It`s not just people giving up on Corbyn`s Labour Party.
In what world does this make pro-Remain Tories less likely to back the government? This shows there are consequences for doing so and Theresa won't roll over when they rebel over a fundamental point of government policy.
Which pro-Remain MPs who might rebel do you think have serious hopes of advancement under Theresa May? If you're never going to be favoured, rebelling is consequence free.
You might get deselected. That's one incentive to stay in line.
I'm enjoying all the kippers giving Conservative MPs lectures on party loyalty. I'd thought only George Galloway had that much brass neck, but it seems not.
Except of course that the Kippers had the courage of their convictions and the good manners to leave the Tory party. So your comparison fails.
In other words, they got their disloyalty in first.
There is no disloyalty on leaving a party when that party no longer reflects your views. You seem to have a very warped moral compass when it comes to.politics.
From the viewpoint of another party you loftily advise the Prime Minister to withdraw the whip from politicians who take a line you disapprove of. If you can't see how warped that is, heaven help you.
Anyhoo if Heseltine can topple Thatcher he can topple a no mark like Theresa May.
Heseltine didn't topple Thatcher when he resigned over Westland he only did so after she toppled herself with the poll tax and Brexit is far more popular than the poll tax
Very surprising that Labour are so close to the Tories there.
Given the chasm that used to lie between Labour & the Tories - in favour of Labour on 'understands people like me' - the move away from the posh boys in the Tories has clearly borne fruit.....
Those would be the posh boys you supported enthusiastically and sycophantically until they were replaced by Theresa Corbyn.
Do please regale us with your insights into polling....or can't you raise yourself above tedious personal sniping?
There should have been a spring GE with parties setting out their negotiation priorities in their manifestos. The Lib Dems etc could have proposed a second vote.
It would have cleared the air and made up for the flaws in the June vote.
There should have been a spring GE with parties setting out their negotiation priorities in their manifestos. The Lib Dems etc could have proposed a second vote.
It would have cleared the air and made up for the flaws in the June vote.
It wouldn't counter the argument that the people didn't know what they were voting for last year, since we won't have completed the negotiations.
I think it would look a little absurd if we invoke A50 then immediately tell them we are going to spend the next two months in a GE campaign, so there is no guarantee you'll be talking to the same people after the election.
In what world does this make pro-Remain Tories less likely to back the government? This shows there are consequences for doing so and Theresa won't roll over when they rebel over a fundamental point of government policy.
Which pro-Remain MPs who might rebel do you think have serious hopes of advancement under Theresa May? If you're never going to be favoured, rebelling is consequence free.
You might get deselected. That's one incentive to stay in line.
I'm enjoying all the kippers giving Conservative MPs lectures on party loyalty. I'd thought only George Galloway had that much brass neck, but it seems not.
Except of course that the Kippers had the courage of their convictions and the good manners to leave the Tory party. So your comparison fails.
In other words, they got their disloyalty in first.
There is no disloyalty on leaving a party when that party no longer reflects your views. You seem to have a very warped moral compass when it comes to.politics.
From the viewpoint of another party you loftily advise the Prime Minister to withdraw the whip from politicians who take a line you disapprove of. If you can't see how warped that is, heaven help you.
I support no.party as I have made clear before. So your basic comprehension is as warped as your morality.
There is no disloyalty on leaving a party when that party no longer reflects your views.
But Tezza's vision of the party is UKIP. Why do all the kippers praise her after every speech and claim it as their own?
Because they have nothing else. A fantasist as this week's leader who get can't elected in one of their top target seats. A "former" leader, always in shot in the background, who hates anybody playing with his train set. A single MP who hates his party. A major donor standing against their sole MP at the next election - to try to throw him out of Parliament.
Of course they praise Theresa May. She is doing what their clueless Party can't. And come the next election, many of them will reward her with their vote.
The Remainer fightback is pootling along. It presages some sort of a rupture. Their intent is not to give parliament control over the terms of Brexit but to frustrate it altogether. If the vote May promised is to be anything other than a 'take it or leave it' one then parliament might choose to opt for a rejection of the terms negotiated. And then we'll leave with no deal. If we are to get a good deal then the government has to be free to negotiate. ...and the House of Lords is going to kill itself if it's not careful...
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
Then why hold a referendum? And even more importantly, why vote overwhelmingly for it and agree to abide by the result? Or is lying an acceptable form of Parliamentary democracy?
Hmm ... I may have answered my own question with that last bit.
There are situations where it might be justifiable to not follow through, if circumstances changed sufficiently or there was demonstrable proof masses of people had changed their minds. I do not see evidence of that, nor do I see justification for not proceeding, but it is conceivable.
But we have the system we have and frankly people moaning about it is getting almost as tiresome as the most intractable of remoAners. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, not unless they say so. The act could have said the result would be implemented, but they didn't put that in. In reality it doesn't matter because politically it is necessary to follow through and the sort of events that would embolden parliament to not do so are staggeringly unlikely, but statements about abiding by it are not legally binding. And people act with outrage at a chamber of parliament proposing amendments to legislation, when that part of its job, it doesn't stop just because we want this bill through.
It'd be damn silly for the whole lot of them to not follow through, but our system deliberately gives them the flexibility. It's a question of whether they would accept the consequences of defying the referendum. They won't, and shouldn't, but that doesn't limit the potential options for parliament, it just informs the realistic and reasonable options.
We must be constantly vigilant against fake news these days. Fortunately for this story the sole source is a tweet from someone unknown of a facebook page by someone else unknown, so its authenticity is a given.
It's wrong though; if she has "paid taxes and NI for decades" she will have clocked up 5 years employment, and she is fine without health insurance. Unless there is something weaselly about the whole story.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
During the campaign it was said by both sides a vote to leave meant coming out of the single market.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
An EEA/EFTA would have been the worst of all worlds, and May was quite right to not even think about it.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
During the campaign it was said by both sides a vote to leave meant coming out of the single market.
Aha. So when do we get our £350m extra a week for the NHS?
There should have been a spring GE with parties setting out their negotiation priorities in their manifestos. The Lib Dems etc could have proposed a second vote.
It would have cleared the air and made up for the flaws in the June vote.
It wouldn't counter the argument that the people didn't know what they were voting for last year, since we won't have completed the negotiations.
I think it would look a little absurd if we invoke A50 then immediately tell them we are going to spend the next two months in a GE campaign, so there is no guarantee you'll be talking to the same people after the election.
The thing to do would have been to have in your manifesto...
CON "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to control immigration from the EU 2) ...
LAB "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to ensure workers rights and 2) ..."
LIB " If elected, on day 1 we will put a referendum bill in front of the HoC. We will not invoke A50 until there is a clear mandate from all parts of the UK.
UKIP "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will NOT conduct negotiations. We will leave immediately. Our priorities will be put the great repeal bill in front of the HoC.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
During the campaign it was said by both sides a vote to leave meant coming out of the single market.
and it was said there'd be 350 gazillions per week for the nhs
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
Not particularly. He's a nice enough man, and Anne is a sweetheart, but they are from a prior generation (he worked with my grandfather for about 30 years!)
This morning is the first time I have felt in my bones that the public might change its mind about Brexit. Now that would be interesting.
Why? In all honesty, most of the people I meet don't really think about Brexit on a day to day basis, they just think the government is getting on with it. I'd hazard a large portion don't even register the hoo-ha in the Lords at all. Of course, on here, or on Twitter and what have you, it's talked about endlessly. I think once Article 50 gets implemented or if it gets delayed, or derailed and that gets reported, then we might see some recognition of it.
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
"perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done"
Well not quite. He is reported to have written down Prime Minister as the job he wanted as a student. He made Deputy PM. Not quite the full cigar, but not bad.
That's true. He did as well as Nick Clegg and John Prescott.
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
I do enjoy Charles's regular reminders about how he is in no way at all - and cannot be remotely considered - a member of the establishment.
I once showed Bill Nighy how to use an automatic check out at Tesco. Does that count?
There should have been a spring GE with parties setting out their negotiation priorities in their manifestos. The Lib Dems etc could have proposed a second vote.
It would have cleared the air and made up for the flaws in the June vote.
It wouldn't counter the argument that the people didn't know what they were voting for last year, since we won't have completed the negotiations.
I think it would look a little absurd if we invoke A50 then immediately tell them we are going to spend the next two months in a GE campaign, so there is no guarantee you'll be talking to the same people after the election.
The thing to do would have been to have in your manifesto...
CON "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to control immigration from the EU 2) ...
LAB "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to ensure workers rights and 2) ..."
LIB " If elected, on day 1 we will put a referendum bill in front of the HoC. We will not invoke A50 until there is a clear mandate from all parts of the UK.
UKIP "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will NOT conduct negotiations. We will leave immediately. Our priorities will be put the great repeal bill in front of the HoC.
Yes, but that doesn't account for what will actually happen during the negotiations. The final deal could look a lot different from the priorities listed by each party. Is the LD position really that they want a second referendum before anything else is done?
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
"perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done"
Well not quite. He is reported to have written down Prime Minister as the job he wanted as a student. He made Deputy PM. Not quite the full cigar, but not bad.
That's true. He did as well as Nick Clegg and John Prescott.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
During the campaign it was said by both sides a vote to leave meant coming out of the single market.
Aha. So when do we get our £350m extra a week for the NHS?
In the fullness of time. I can guarantee you that at some point down the line, NHS spending will be £350mn a week higher than it is now.
It makes sense I think. The moderates aren't going anywhere and they understand TM has been dealt a tough hand. The Leadsom supporters on the right might topple her if they don't trust her on Brexit.
Don`t be so sure about that, Mr rkrkrk. A fair number of people are moving over from t he Conservative Party to the Lib Dems. It`s not just people giving up on Corbyn`s Labour Party.
Maybe I'm wrong. I can certainly imagine ordinary people switching to LDems although polls don't seem to show that in large numbers.
But MPs? Basically giving up on prospects of getting into government jobs. Not sure I can imagine the moderates defecting.
This morning is the first time I have felt in my bones that the public might change its mind about Brexit. Now that would be interesting.
Why? In all honesty, most of the people I meet don't really think about Brexit on a day to day basis, they just think the government is getting on with it. I'd hazard a large portion don't even register the hoo-ha in the Lords at all. Of course, on here, or on Twitter and what have you, it's talked about endlessly. I think once Article 50 gets implemented or if it gets delayed, or derailed and that gets reported, then we might see some recognition of it.
I actually agree with that. My view is simply because the shambling and the distinct lack of strategy from May suggests No Deal / Bad Deal much more likely that Good Deal.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
Tory voters would have defected en masse to UKIP if no new immigration controls at all, plus May still likely to go for a job offer requirement
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
We must be constantly vigilant against fake news these days. Fortunately for this story the sole source is a tweet from someone unknown of a facebook page by someone else unknown, so its authenticity is a given.
It's wrong though; if she has "paid taxes and NI for decades" she will have clocked up 5 years employment, and she is fine without health insurance. Unless there is something weaselly about the whole story.
There is a link earlier in the thread to a report in the Independent - the case may not be quite as straightforward as presented - a French politician involved remarked that the situation was atypical and very unusual as the teacher had been employed by the French government - so as with the 30 year resident British granny who in fact was Singaporean and had spent most of her married life outside the UK, there may be more to the case than initially presented.....
There should have been a spring GE with parties setting out their negotiation priorities in their manifestos. The Lib Dems etc could have proposed a second vote.
It would have cleared the air and made up for the flaws in the June vote.
It wouldn't counter the argument that the people didn't know what they were voting for last year, since we won't have completed the negotiations.
I think it would look a little absurd if we invoke A50 then immediately tell them we are going to spend the next two months in a GE campaign, so there is no guarantee you'll be talking to the same people after the election.
The thing to do would have been to have in your manifesto...
CON "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to control immigration from the EU 2) ...
LAB "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to ensure workers rights and 2) ..."
LIB " If elected, on day 1 we will put a referendum bill in front of the HoC. We will not invoke A50 until there is a clear mandate from all parts of the UK.
UKIP "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will NOT conduct negotiations. We will leave immediately. Our priorities will be put the great repeal bill in front of the HoC.
Yes, but that doesn't account for what will actually happen during the negotiations. The final deal could look a lot different from the priorities listed by each party.
It is no different to any manifesto at any other GE. You set out your priorities and get on with it. What actually happens is always determined by events.
The danger of this is that Heseltine looks set to be portrayed as the main Tory opponent of TMay’s plans and he’ll be looked to far more for comment and criticism. His actions could also encourage MPs in pro-REMAIN seats to be less keen to support the government as the bill goes back to the Commons.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It could also send a message 'rebellion is not consequence free' (unlike in Labour).
May values party loyalty highly, so rebels should expect punishment.
Heseltine was always up for 'rent-a-quote' anyway, so this changes nothing.
Agree. I have chatted to Michael a few times in Waitrose (he prefers purple sprouted broccoli, while I'm a traditionalist in these important matters of state) but don't know him well. But to suggest that he's some great hero for the Tory Party is just untrue. He was a senior figure in the party, perhaps didn't rise has high as he thought he should have done, but isn't respected nearly as much as the likes of Lawson or Howe.
The BBC likes him though, so he'll get plenty of airtime
I bet you enjoyed sharpening your hatchet there Charles!
You mean he enjoyed watching the footman doing it.
Interesting comments from Farage on LBC last night, his use of "we" on the whole BREXIT process (ie we got it through the Commons, for us to be defeated in the Lords etc) implies a language of closening to the Tories, almost painting himself as part of TM's inner circle (poss what makes him so attractive to Pres Trump). Elements of UKIP definitely wrapping themselves in Tory colours. Although he was keen to remind listeners that TM had been a remainer
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
An EEA/EFTA would have been the worst of all worlds, and May was quite right to not even think about it.
Brexit means Brexit.
Is that similar to a Red, White & Blue Brexit? Or is it more like a Full English Brexit?
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
There should have been a spring GE with parties setting out their negotiation priorities in their manifestos. The Lib Dems etc could have proposed a second vote.
It would have cleared the air and made up for the flaws in the June vote.
It wouldn't counter the argument that the people didn't know what they were voting for last year, since we won't have completed the negotiations.
I think it would look a little absurd if we invoke A50 then immediately tell them we are going to spend the next two months in a GE campaign, so there is no guarantee you'll be talking to the same people after the election.
The thing to do would have been to have in your manifesto...
CON "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to control immigration from the EU 2) ...
LAB "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to ensure workers rights and 2) ..."
LIB " If elected, on day 1 we will put a referendum bill in front of the HoC. We will not invoke A50 until there is a clear mandate from all parts of the UK.
UKIP "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will NOT conduct negotiations. We will leave immediately. Our priorities will be put the great repeal bill in front of the HoC.
Yes, but that doesn't account for what will actually happen during the negotiations. The final deal could look a lot different from the priorities listed by each party.
It is no different to any manifesto at any other GE. You set out your priorities and get on with it. What actually happens is always determined by events.
Not denying that, but the line "not what the British people voted for" is used a lot to describe hard Brexit (e.g.). That wouldn't entirely go away as the final deal may be significantly different from the priorities laid out in the manifestos
This morning is the first time I have felt in my bones that the public might change its mind about Brexit. Now that would be interesting.
Why? In all honesty, most of the people I meet don't really think about Brexit on a day to day basis, they just think the government is getting on with it. I'd hazard a large portion don't even register the hoo-ha in the Lords at all. Of course, on here, or on Twitter and what have you, it's talked about endlessly. I think once Article 50 gets implemented or if it gets delayed, or derailed and that gets reported, then we might see some recognition of it.
I actually agree with that. My view is simply because the shambling and the distinct lack of strategy from May suggests No Deal / Bad Deal much more likely that Good Deal.
But yet youu seem to support all the current shenanigans that make No Deal so much more likely. WTF?
This morning is the first time I have felt in my bones that the public might change its mind about Brexit. Now that would be interesting.
Why? In all honesty, most of the people I meet don't really think about Brexit on a day to day basis, they just think the government is getting on with it. I'd hazard a large portion don't even register the hoo-ha in the Lords at all. Of course, on here, or on Twitter and what have you, it's talked about endlessly. I think once Article 50 gets implemented or if it gets delayed, or derailed and that gets reported, then we might see some recognition of it.
How are things on earth? Good of you to pop in from time to time to remind some of the more excitable posters that voters don't remotely pay the attention to these things we do.....
Comments
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important
(2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
Can anyone honestly give me another reason?
https://twitter.com/SkyData/status/839385129671884800
"No results found for "michael heseltine met theresa may"."
(Similar results for 'meets', and variations.)
Or perhaps she just failed to make an impression.
The first green shoots that suggest Brexit is unravelling which is far more important than party politics and ultimately good news for all of us
There'd be quite a few Leavers who'd be incensed at that.
Sir Bill Cash recently praised Ken Clarke's principled views of sixty years.
Well not quite. He is reported to have written down Prime Minister as the job he wanted as a student. He made Deputy PM. Not quite the full cigar, but not bad.
Thatcher didn’t dare sack Heseltine. But now May has done so.
His position as an adviser was thus more than decorative and he will be a loss. But the Prime Minister clearly felt that she could not have him both exercising a senior role within it while also supporting a move whose logic is to bring it down, or try to (which is the sum of the pathetic Lords amendment to the Article 50 Bill which he backed yesterday).
There is an echo of Westland. That time round, he got ahead of Margaret Thatcher by announcing his resignation before the Government machine could grind into action. And this time, he duly got ahead of May, too, popping up for interviews yesterday evening before Downing Street could get its line out. But there is a difference. Thatcher didn’t dare sack him. May now has.
The one-time Lion King has lost most of his teeth, of course, and the Prime Minister, unlike her predecessor, runs few risks by putting him out to grass. Advisers are not Ministers, and so Heseltine’s defenestration was not formally necessary. But May clearly felt that a signal must be sent pour encourager les autres. As someone or other once put it, there is no alternative.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/thatcher-didnt-dare-sack-heseltine-may-has-just-done-so.html
"Yes, because we are a Parliamentary democracy."
Then why hold a referendum? And even more importantly, why vote overwhelmingly for it and agree to abide by the result? Or is lying an acceptable form of Parliamentary democracy?
Hmm ... I may have answered my own question with that last bit.
Yes, it really is striking, the contrast between an 83-year-old giant who stands up for what he believes is right and best for the country, and the sycophantic rear-end licking umpa-lumpas of the modern generation.
Chortle ..
Bloody cheek ....
That's certainly plausible, but testing times are almost entirely devoid of meaning.
"...We see this all the time, this enacting of bigotry under the guise of tackling bigotry. Leave voters are bigots, say certain angry Remainers who display the most eye-watering bigotry towards ‘low-information’ Leavers and their allegedly bovine opinions.
People who criticise Islam are bigots, say some radical Islamists who are actually just intolerant of anti-Islam ‘blasphemy’. The bigotry of anti-bigotry is best summed up in the image of the Stepford Student — those campus censors who fume against people with unpopular views, and try to shut them down, on the basis that they’re ‘bigots’.
Imagine how little self-awareness they must have to behave like bigots, through expressing intolerance towards those who think differently, while posing as implacable foes of bigotry...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/jenni-murray-isnt-bigot-shes-victim-bigotry/
"We had a referendum because David Cameron was scared of losing votes to UKIP.."
True, but it had overwhelming support - and not just in the Tory Party. Did the Labour Parry cross their fingers behind their back?
he Conservative Party to the Lib Dems. It`s not just people giving up on Corbyn`s Labour Party.
LOL
It would have cleared the air and made up for the flaws in the June vote.
Us PBTories might have to withdraw your whip....
I think it would look a little absurd if we invoke A50 then immediately tell them we are going to spend the next two months in a GE campaign, so there is no guarantee you'll be talking to the same people after the election.
Of course they praise Theresa May. She is doing what their clueless Party can't. And come the next election, many of them will reward her with their vote.
If we are to get a good deal then the government has to be free to negotiate.
...and the House of Lords is going to kill itself if it's not careful...
But we have the system we have and frankly people moaning about it is getting almost as tiresome as the most intractable of remoAners. Referendums are not binding, they just aren't, not unless they say so. The act could have said the result would be implemented, but they didn't put that in. In reality it doesn't matter because politically it is necessary to follow through and the sort of events that would embolden parliament to not do so are staggeringly unlikely, but statements about abiding by it are not legally binding. And people act with outrage at a chamber of parliament proposing amendments to legislation, when that part of its job, it doesn't stop just because we want this bill through.
It'd be damn silly for the whole lot of them to not follow through, but our system deliberately gives them the flexibility. It's a question of whether they would accept the consequences of defying the referendum. They won't, and shouldn't, but that doesn't limit the potential options for parliament, it just informs the realistic and reasonable options.
It's wrong though; if she has "paid taxes and NI for decades" she will have clocked up 5 years employment, and she is fine without health insurance. Unless there is something weaselly about the whole story.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/soames-prime-minister-needs-to-give-brexit-mps-a-kick-in-the-balls-a3208981.html
Its all somewhat reminiscent of 1992-3 but old Ken apart the pro-EU headbangers are a very poor bunch.
Brexit means Brexit.
CON "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to control immigration from the EU 2) ...
LAB "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will conduct negotiations. Our priorities will be 1) to ensure workers rights and 2) ..."
LIB " If elected, on day 1 we will put a referendum bill in front of the HoC. We will not invoke A50 until there is a clear mandate from all parts of the UK.
UKIP "If elected, on day 1 we will invoke A50. We will NOT conduct negotiations. We will leave immediately. Our priorities will be put the great repeal bill in front of the HoC.
But MPs? Basically giving up on prospects of getting into government jobs.
Not sure I can imagine the moderates defecting.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.