They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
They are pitching no single market, and it is already pissing off Labour MPs (and causing some angst on Twitter)
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
If it's a choice between a soft Brexit and letting Corbyn in, I'd hope that all but the maddest Tories manage to hold their tongues...
@Ben_Wray1989: Curtice: "90% of yes voters in the 2014 referendum voted SNP in the 2015 General Election - only 75% of yes voters backed SNP in #GE2017."
I was thinking about this. I suspect people are thinking, what's the point of a nationalist party that doesn't deliver independence? Around 2014 there was the prospect of getting independence and immediately afterwards, there was the idea of keeping the momentum going. However once that prospect recedes there isn't anything to motivate you. The problem for the SNP is not that people are thinking independence is a bad idea. They are thinking it's not going to happen. So then you start shopping around and there isn't any compelling other reason to vote SNP. Pointing to a lacklustre ten year record in office doesn't help them. If you want a change, more competition or new ideas, you need to vote for someone else.
What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.
The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.
Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?
Suggest you go back and re-read what HS2 is doing and why.
After nearly 8 years, remind me what the better alternative is to increase the track capacity on the WCML, ECML and MML?
oh, and the billions of £ of contracts for Phase 1 are signed, sealed and being delivered.
Cancel them, get nothing, but waste billions?
Save billions not yet spent on a vanity project.
Is Crossrail a vanity project?
Or are schemes to improve transport in northern cities the only vanity projects?
If you wanted a scheme that would improve transport in the North you should have been pushing for better cross country links between the north east and north west, not just another way to suck more money into London.
A major study was done on the effects of the TGV system on French cities in 2007 which found that rather than causing growth in the outlying regions of France it actually sucked yet more business into Paris and caused even more centralisation. Overall there was no appreciable growth in many of the cities as a result of the connection to the TGV system.
I am not opposed to infrastructure projects. I am opposed to those which will do little or nothing to stimulate growth outside London.
Corbyn before election called != Corbyn after election campaign. That's why the wished-for "keep Corbyn out" vote won't materialise. He looks like PM material now.
The best the Tories can hope for is to appoint PM material as leader (I don't see any serious contenders) and then to duke it out with Labour on policy. The personality card has been played and it backfired massively.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
I think if the Tories want to slow Labour's momentum they need to do the following things:
- Softer Brexit - Cancel DUP deal - Get RID of May. There's no way in hell the Tories can make ground with lost voters with her at the helm. She is permanently damaged, a total and utter walking disaster, who is politically tone deaf and has no self-awareness. - Get someone half decent in who can explain Conservative policy and vision clearly and confidently, who is comfortable with communicating voters and who is self-aware. - Focus more on conveying a positive vision for the country and addressing voters' concerns and less on personal attacks on Corbyn.
All in all a great victory for Jeremy Corbyn on a par with Attlee in performance.The nation is in static paralysis and impatiently waits for Mr Corbyn to take over.
Out of curiosity, how many seats Attlee won, compared to Corbyn?
Attlee lost the 1951 election because the electorate had had enough of austerity.
People get fed up of it after a while.
More people voted Labour in 1951 than in 1945. Labour was more popular in 1951 when it lost than in 1945 when it won. Thats the system we have.
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
They are pitching no single market, and it is already pissing off Labour MPs (and causing some angst on Twitter)
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
If it's a choice between a soft Brexit and letting Corbyn in, I'd hope that all but the maddest Tories manage to hold their tongues...
Good luck with that.
Since I am not a Tory I am very happy to say that I would rather see Corbyn in than Brexit abandoned. Corbyn can be got rid of at the next election. The EU cannot. Besides, people need a bout of good old fashioned Socialism to inoculate them against it for another 40 years.
The good old FTPA means the Tories can govern (albeit ineffectually) for as much of the next 5 years as they like, even on their fairly rubbish numbers. 10 DUP + Sylvia Hermon will never no confidence them if it means letting Corbyn in.
The Tories' strategy of last resort - waiting for Corbyn to die of old age...
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
I think if the Tories want to slow Labour's momentum they need to do several of the following:
- Softer Brexit - Cancel DUP deal - Get RID of May. There's no way in hell the Tories can make ground with lost voters with her at the helm. She is permanently damaged, a total and utter walking disaster, who is politically tone deaf and has no self-awareness. - Get someone half decent in who can explain Conservative policy and vision clearly and confidently, who is comfortable with communicating voters and who is self-aware. - Focus more on conveying a positive vision for the country and addressing voters' concerns and less on personal attacks on Corbyn.
Definitely one strategy, but a bit risky to get rid of a party leader after just having 'won' an election.
But the other is to actually get on with governing. Show themselves as the party of doing and (especially) Brexiting rather than simply protesting, and they might last longer than you think.
Given neither the DUP nor the SNP want an election in the near future, longer than you think might be a long time indeed.
The day it came out I came on here to say the manifesto went down like a bucket of sick on radio phone-in,not one caller had anything good to say about it.
Very entertaining. I met Nigel Evans some years ago on a train when he was rent-a-gob. At that time he wasn't particularly likeable. Since he came out and had those problems with the men in blue he's mellowed and now seems more articulate and genuine
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
They are pitching no single market, and it is already pissing off Labour MPs (and causing some angst on Twitter)
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
If it's a choice between a soft Brexit and letting Corbyn in, I'd hope that all but the maddest Tories manage to hold their tongues...
Good luck with that.
Since I am not a Tory I am very happy to say that I would rather see Corbyn in than Brexit abandoned. Corbyn can be got rid of at the next election. The EU cannot. Besides, people need a bout of good old fashioned Socialism to inoculate them against it for another 40 years.
Isn't this like asking, what's your favourite STD?
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
I think if the Tories want to slow Labour's momentum they need to do the following things:
- Softer Brexit - Cancel DUP deal - Get RID of May. There's no way in hell the Tories can make ground with lost voters with her at the helm. She is permanently damaged, a total and utter walking disaster, who is politically tone deaf and has no self-awareness. - Get someone half decent in who can explain Conservative policy and vision clearly and confidently, who is comfortable with communicating voters and who is self-aware. - Focus more on conveying a positive vision for the country and addressing voters' concerns and less on personal attacks on Corbyn.
Perhaps the Tories should get rid of tuition fees.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
I think if the Tories want to slow Labour's momentum they need to do the following things:
- Softer Brexit - Cancel DUP deal - Get RID of May. There's no way in hell the Tories can make ground with lost voters with her at the helm. She is permanently damaged, a total and utter walking disaster, who is politically tone deaf and has no self-awareness. - Get someone half decent in who can explain Conservative policy and vision clearly and confidently, who is comfortable with communicating voters and who is self-aware. - Focus more on conveying a positive vision for the country and addressing voters' concerns and less on personal attacks on Corbyn.
If only you'd gone for a drink with Nick Timothy 5 weeks ago...
Some of Theresa May’s most senior ministers are plotting to soften her plans for a hard Brexit, even suggesting the U.K. could stay in Europe’s single market and customs union, as the prime minister fights to stay in power.
Corbyn before election called != Corbyn after election campaign. That's why the wished-for "keep Corbyn out" vote won't materialise. He looks like PM material now.
The best the Tories can hope for is to appoint PM material as leader (I don't see any serious contenders) and then to duke it out with Labour on policy. The personality card has been played and it backfired massively.
He looks like and sounds a cult leader, but for whatever reason, 40% of the voters didn't mind. But as others have said, how many people who voted actually thought he would get that close in reality? As SO kept trolling 'Labour can't win, so it's safe to vote for Corbyn' - it almost worked.
A decent Queen's speech and following budget could turn this mess around for the Tories as quicky as it enveloped them.
Corbyn is on 45% with Survation, with May on 39%. I expect the Yougov will show similiarly.
He is ahead, and would win
May thought exactly the same just seven weeks ago. Events, dear boy, events.
Just as Callaghan was ahead in 1979 just after Thatcher's election in 1979........and Foot was ahead in 1980, and Kinnock was ahead after the 1983 election, and again after Major became prime minister....
whereas Telegraph are reporting that this signals a shoring up of Hard Brexit.
If there's one thing (with the exception of that LVT....silly mistake I made there) that I've learned over the last seven years, it's to not pay attention to the Telegraph. They've totally lost the plot ever since the Conservatives decided to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Yes. Used to be a great read. As a Lefty I really enjoyed it. Variety of views. Always well argued, even if you didn't agree. (Like PB on a good day!). Plus it was the best for Sport on Monday. It is now a total irrelevance barking at the moon for lost Thatcherism behind an exclusive paywall.
All in all a great victory for Jeremy Corbyn on a par with Attlee in performance.The nation is in static paralysis and impatiently waits for Mr Corbyn to take over.
Out of curiosity, how many seats Attlee won, compared to Corbyn?
Attlee lost the 1951 election because the electorate had had enough of austerity.
People get fed up of it after a while.
People get fed up with austerity so they vote in socialists. The socialists virtually bankrupt the country necessitating another round of austerity
It's political correctness gone mad that an Englishman can't say what he feels.
Whatever happened to free speech?
Nothing against free speech but Osborne has proved he is not a gentleman, bad mouthing his own side.
Your complaints would carry more weight if you had criticised Nadine Dorries for describing Dave and George as 'arrogant posh boys'
Apart from the Brexit referendum fiasco (I know ... did you enjoy the play?) I have more time for Cameron and Osborne than May. However, simply on the facts, they are arrogant posh boys?
No it isn't. As usual you are talking bollocks. Your quote refers to the Single Market not the Customs Union. Everything in that quote could happen if we were outside the Customs Union as long as we remained in the Single Market
Can I just say that the post election analysis on here is second to none. So much better than the pre election tensions. Thanks to all involved, and especially OGH, OGH Jnr and TSE.
Oh, and the jokes are funnier too.
It's not funny when there is a chance of Marxists in Downing Street.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
I think if the Tories want to slow Labour's momentum they need to do several of the following:
- Softer Brexit - Cancel DUP deal - Get RID of May. There's no way in hell the Tories can make ground with lost voters with her at the helm. She is permanently damaged, a total and utter walking disaster, who is politically tone deaf and has no self-awareness. - Get someone half decent in who can explain Conservative policy and vision clearly and confidently, who is comfortable with communicating voters and who is self-aware. - Focus more on conveying a positive vision for the country and addressing voters' concerns and less on personal attacks on Corbyn.
Definitely one strategy, but a bit risky to get rid of a party leader after just having 'won' an election.
But the other is to actually get on with governing. Show themselves as the party of doing and (especially) Brexiting rather than simply protesting, and they might last longer than you think.
Given neither the DUP nor the SNP want an election in the near future, longer than you think might be a long time indeed.
Well they didn't 'win' the election, that's the point of why May is so damaged. No one won the election.
Actually governing is difficult when you have 318 MPs and are only interested in talking with the DUP to prop your government up in an unstable confidence and supply agreement rather than engaging with other political parties. If May reached out to Labour, LDs, and other parties the Tories could come out of it well and be seen to working in the national interest. As it is she seeking to have the government propped up by a party that has social views that are a mile away from wider society.
Furthermore, as noted this weekend by @foxinsoxuk May does not have the skills to be able to do the kind of things to maintain a stable government at this time - mainly, being a good a horse-trading and negotiating. She has shown herself over her premiership to be a woman who isn't interested in a collegiate approach of listening to others but has instead relied on a small cabal of advisors.
DUP nor the SNP not wanting an election just means longer period of political turmoil for the Tories if things do not change.
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
The Tories lost too many of those seats due to the dementia tax policy. OxWAb, Bath, Twickenham and Eastbourne all have high value property anda fairly large number of older voters.
I hadn't spotted that as a particular feature. Are all the LD seats in areas with older than average populations? It would make sense of where they won, and where they lost to Labour.
Eastbourne's reputation for old people is a bit out of date. I think the result there was much more about a very hard working local candidate.
The older skew seems intuitively right. The LibDems are - rightly or wrongly - hated by swathes of young people because of tuition fees.
OxWAB was a strongly Remain area, lots of politically active (but unable to vote) non-British Europeans who got involved, all co-ordinated by a well-oiled local organisation still in place from the Evan Harris days. There were noticeably less Conservative posters around - and don't forget *that* visit by Theresa May early in the campaign.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened. - It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority. - In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
Excellent post.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
A good post but I don't agree with it. I'm pretty convinced that if Corbyn stood a chance of winning a lot less people would have voted for him. This was proved by the leadership polls which hardly shifted throughout the campaign.
Towards the end people had become really pissed off with May and decided a vote for Corbyn was a hit to nothing. Why his support has surged since is merely down to momentum and success breeding success.
People who only saw an anti May candidate took a second look and quite liked what they saw..
All in all a great victory for Jeremy Corbyn on a par with Attlee in performance.The nation is in static paralysis and impatiently waits for Mr Corbyn to take over.
Out of curiosity, how many seats Attlee won, compared to Corbyn?
Attlee lost the 1951 election because the electorate had had enough of austerity.
People get fed up of it after a while.
People get fed up with austerity so they vote in socialists. The socialists virtually bankrupt the country necessitating another round of austerity
Not a very accurate history!
Lab lost in 1951 because of continuing austerity, and both of Wilsons victories as well as Blairs took place at times of economic growth.
You were singing the praises of Norway earlier, outside the customs union
How many cars do they manufacture?
Oh
As usual you are talking bollocks.
It doesn't matter. Nothing on that list in that quote would be prevented by us being outside the Customs Union. As long as we remain in the Single Market. Stop making a twat of yourself and learn some facts.
Corbyn before election called != Corbyn after election campaign. That's why the wished-for "keep Corbyn out" vote won't materialise. He looks like PM material now.
The best the Tories can hope for is to appoint PM material as leader (I don't see any serious contenders) and then to duke it out with Labour on policy. The personality card has been played and it backfired massively.
He looks like and sounds a cult leader, but for whatever reason, 40% of the voters didn't mind. But as others have said, how many people who voted actually thought he would get that close in reality? As SO kept trolling 'Labour can't win, so it's safe to vote for Corbyn' - it almost worked.
What on Earth did you think a PM was, if not a cult leader? :-)
Anecdotally, I must have door-stepped around 500 people during the campaign (Brentford & Isleworth). The idea that Corbyn was safe to vote for because he couldn't win never came up. I think seasoned nerds like us tend to forget that the vast majority of people have no idea what the polls, forecasts, odds, markets, etc. are saying. They voted seeing no reason why Corbyn couldn't win. Indeed, May even told them that he could be PM if only she lost 6 seats. To the ordinary punter, that possibility wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as outlandish as it sounded here.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
We repeat ourselves. Being in a customs union with the EU is suboptimal but on balance and by a big margin is better than incurring the costs of not having a free flow of goods with our main market and as a consequence seeing a big fall in trade. We rejected our by far best option of being a member of the EU.
whereas Telegraph are reporting that this signals a shoring up of Hard Brexit.
If there's one thing (with the exception of that LVT....silly mistake I made there) that I've learned over the last seven years, it's to not pay attention to the Telegraph. They've totally lost the plot ever since the Conservatives decided to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Yes. Used to be a great read. As a Lefty I really enjoyed it. Variety of views. Always well argued, even if you didn't agree. (Like PB on a good day!). Plus it was the best for Sport on Monday. It is now a total irrelevance barking at the moon for lost Thatcherism behind an exclusive paywall.
Yep. It's a shame because in 2009 they had been behind a great piece of investigative journalism in revealing the MPs' expenses scandal.
For the last two years especially The Telegraph has been particularly unreadable.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
And many voted Tory because they thought TM would provide good government.How is that going?
@Ben_Wray1989: Curtice: "90% of yes voters in the 2014 referendum voted SNP in the 2015 General Election - only 75% of yes voters backed SNP in #GE2017."
I was thinking about this. I suspect people are thinking, what's the point of a nationalist party that doesn't deliver independence? Around 2014 there was the prospect of getting independence and immediately afterwards, there was the idea of keeping the momentum going. However once that prospect recedes there isn't anything to motivate you. The problem for the SNP is not that people are thinking independence is a bad idea. They are thinking it's not going to happen. So then you start shopping around and there isn't any compelling other reason to vote SNP. Pointing to a lacklustre ten year record in office doesn't help them. If you want a change, more competition or new ideas, you need to vote for someone else.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
So if that were the approach, we'd be better off not Brexiting?
Nope because we would still be rid of all the additional Brussels bullshit. The Single Market rules make only a small amount of the total legislative burden from the EU.
But staying in the Customs Union would take away an important part of our ability to grow as part of the world economy. We would still be held back by having our trade controlled by the EU. It is dumb.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
I think you can make a case for two years in the customs union (assuming it's a treaty with an explicit two year length). Otherwise we effectively lose all the existing EU arrangements and spend the next few years getting them back again. Simpler to agree 1/1/19 - EFTA/EEA + Customs Union; 1/1/21, exit Customs Unions; 1/6/22 referendum on whether to remain in EFTA/EEA.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
Corbyn before election called != Corbyn after election campaign. That's why the wished-for "keep Corbyn out" vote won't materialise. He looks like PM material now.
The best the Tories can hope for is to appoint PM material as leader (I don't see any serious contenders) and then to duke it out with Labour on policy. The personality card has been played and it backfired massively.
He looks like and sounds a cult leader, but for whatever reason, 40% of the voters didn't mind. But as others have said, how many people who voted actually thought he would get that close in reality? As SO kept trolling 'Labour can't win, so it's safe to vote for Corbyn' - it almost worked.
What on Earth did you think a PM was, if not a cult leader? :-)
Anecdotally, I must have door-stepped around 500 people during the campaign (Brentford & Isleworth). The idea that Corbyn was safe to vote for because he couldn't win never came up. I think seasoned nerds like us tend to forget that the vast majority of people have no idea what the polls, forecasts, odds, markets, etc. are saying. They voted seeing no reason why Corbyn couldn't win. Indeed, May even told them that he could be PM if only she lost 6 seats. To the ordinary punter, that possibility wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as outlandish as it sounded here.
Only three Labour leaders in 100 years have succeeded in overthrowing a Tory government with a majority -Blair, Wilson and Attlee, only two if you consider that Wilson's victory in 1964 was by the skin of the teeth. All the others have been ahead in the polls -some of them hugely, but when people actually went into the polling booths, they decided not to elect them. Corbyn is not a Blair, Wilson or Attlee -and Attlee had already been deputy to Churchill through the World War and was hugely popular. Corbyn is no Attlee.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
So if that were the approach, we'd be better off not Brexiting?
Nope because we would still be rid of all the additional Brussels bullshit. The Single Market rules make only a small amount of the total legislative burden from the EU.
But staying in the Customs Union would take away an important part of our ability to grow as part of the world economy. We would still be held back by having our trade controlled by the EU. It is dumb.
The average Leave voter didn't give a damn about trade deals IMO (whereas they very much did care about immigration).
Leaving the Single Market, but staying in the Customs Union, seems a sensible way forward to me, which would deliver on what the country thought they voted for.
No it isn't. As usual you are talking bollocks. Your quote refers to the Single Market not the Customs Union. Everything in that quote could happen if we were outside the Customs Union as long as we remained in the Single Market
It could probably all happen in the US too. They could buy kit from a German manufacturer, made in Poland, and fly someone out to fix it too.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
We repeat ourselves. Being in a customs union with the EU is suboptimal but on balance and by a big margin is better than incurring the costs of not having a free flow of goods with our main market and as a consequence seeing a big fall in trade. We rejected our by far best option of being a member of the EU.
We would still have the free flow of goods as part of the Single Market just as the non EU, EEA members do. It is not necessary to be part of the Customs Union for that - as Scott 'n' Paste's quote makes very clear even if he singularly fails to understand it.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
So if that were the approach, we'd be better off not Brexiting?
Nope because we would still be rid of all the additional Brussels bullshit. The Single Market rules make only a small amount of the total legislative burden from the EU.
But staying in the Customs Union would take away an important part of our ability to grow as part of the world economy. We would still be held back by having our trade controlled by the EU. It is dumb.
The average Leave voter didn't give a damn about trade deals IMO (whereas they very much did care about immigration).
Leaving the Single Market, but staying in the Customs Union, seems a sensible way forward to me, which would deliver on what the country thought they voted for.
Then you lose your ability to trade freely with the EU (by being outside the Single Market) and your ability to make your own trade deals outside the EU (by being inside the Customs Union). That really will kill the economy.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
I think you can make a case for two years in the customs union (assuming it's a treaty with an explicit two year length). Otherwise we effectively lose all the existing EU arrangements and spend the next few years getting them back again. Simpler to agree 1/1/19 - EFTA/EEA + Customs Union; 1/1/21, exit Customs Unions; 1/6/22 referendum on whether to remain in EFTA/EEA.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
The chances of the EU agreeing that as temporary arrangement are very low, I think. They wouldn't go through the two year treaty process only to drag out the uncertainty. The reason for them accepting us into the EEA, at least, and possibly also into a customs union, is that it derisks Brexit for them. If it doesn't do that, they wouldn't be interested.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
We repeat ourselves. Being in a customs union with the EU is suboptimal but on balance and by a big margin is better than incurring the costs of not having a free flow of goods with our main market and as a consequence seeing a big fall in trade. We rejected our by far best option of being a member of the EU.
We would still have the free flow of goods as part of the Single Market just as the non EU, EEA members do. It is not necessary to be part of the Customs Union for that - as Scott 'n' Paste's quote makes very clear even if he singularly fails to understand it.
I'm a Brexiteer, but let's not pretend leaving the Customs Union is cost free. Some Norwegian firms actually chose to pay tariffs on goods that are technically exempt under EFTA because that process is quicker than having to prove that they are exempt under rules of origin.
Nothing on that list in that quote would be prevented by us being outside the Customs Union.
But car manufacturing would be decimated, which is where I started.
Stop making a twat of yourself and learn some facts.
Doesn't work Scott. You are the one who clearly doesn't understand the basic institutions and how they work which is why I am having to try and educate you. You have produced no 'facts' and just one cut and paste which you so completely misunderstood that in fact it undermines your whole argument. That really is dumb.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
I think you can make a case for two years in the customs union (assuming it's a treaty with an explicit two year length). Otherwise we effectively lose all the existing EU arrangements and spend the next few years getting them back again. Simpler to agree 1/1/19 - EFTA/EEA + Customs Union; 1/1/21, exit Customs Unions; 1/6/22 referendum on whether to remain in EFTA/EEA.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
If you want a time limited treaty then you need to have a solution in place for Northern Ireland before you start, otherwise you'd risk timing out into something that was unacceptable. So is your solution special status for NI in the EU?
"That's right I must have answered about 12 emails asking me to volunteer to phone, each time I said yes and each time they never got back to me. Also know that my children 20-28, were getting loads of facebook messages from labour. Every time I said something they would have an answer from the propaganda they were being fed. We were hopeless and complacent, made us look arrogant." From Conhome.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
I think you can make a case for two years in the customs union (assuming it's a treaty with an explicit two year length). Otherwise we effectively lose all the existing EU arrangements and spend the next few years getting them back again. Simpler to agree 1/1/19 - EFTA/EEA + Customs Union; 1/1/21, exit Customs Unions; 1/6/22 referendum on whether to remain in EFTA/EEA.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
The chances of the EU agreeing that as temporary arrangement are very low, I think. They wouldn't go through the two year treaty process only to drag out the uncertainty. The reason for them accepting us into the EEA, at least, and possibly also into a customs union, is that it derisks Brexit for them. If it doesn't do that, they wouldn't be interested.
I'm sorry but I think that's tosh.
The EU would be spared the hard choice of working out how to make up for our lost cash, as we'd still be paying in the near term.
They would also be able to have the hope that - five years in - we came back snivelling saying "oh, thinking about it, leaving is much harder than we thought it would be".
It also minimises the economic disruption to a bunch of countries that have only recently left a near decade long economic stagnation. (And don't forget, Macron and Merkel are ultimately pragmatists who want to be re-elected. 3% economic growth while we do 3.5% = re-election. -0.5% while we do -2% = booted out by their populations.)
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
I think you can make a case for two years in the customs union (assuming it's a treaty with an explicit two year length). Otherwise we effectively lose all the existing EU arrangements and spend the next few years getting them back again. Simpler to agree 1/1/19 - EFTA/EEA + Customs Union; 1/1/21, exit Customs Unions; 1/6/22 referendum on whether to remain in EFTA/EEA.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
If you want a time limited treaty then you need to have a solution in place for Northern Ireland before you start, otherwise you'd risk timing out into something that was unacceptable. So is your solution special status for NI in the EU?
I think you can make a case for two years in the customs union (assuming it's a treaty with an explicit two year length). Otherwise we effectively lose all the existing EU arrangements and spend the next few years getting them back again. Simpler to agree 1/1/19 - EFTA/EEA + Customs Union; 1/1/21, exit Customs Unions; 1/6/22 referendum on whether to remain in EFTA/EEA.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
The chances of the EU agreeing that as temporary arrangement are very low, I think. They wouldn't go through the two year treaty process only to drag out the uncertainty. The reason for them accepting us into the EEA, at least, and possibly also into a customs union, is that it derisks Brexit for them. If it doesn't do that, they wouldn't be interested.
I do think EEA is possible as a "final settlement". However the EU will stick to the process. It will want its pound of flesh of exit fees and sort out citizen rights. Ireland might depend on whether EEA is agreed. If (and it is IF) the EU agree to EEA for the UK, they will want some commitment to it from the UK government and confidence that it is the final settlement and not just a convenient stop on the UK's journey out of the EU. If the EEA is agreed as the final settlement, the transition is easy to arrange.
The alternative is a time and scope limited extension of current arrangements without a definite final arrangement in place before the extension runs out. That creates a lot of uncertainty and one thing is sure - we won't be ready to leave in two years' time.
In summary EEA is an expensive and unsatisfactory replacement for EU membership, but it does bring a degree of certainty. I think both sides can live with that, given the alternative.
A very big deal that Hammond is part of the plot for a Softer Brexit.
This GE result has been a true blessing.
The Single Market would be good. The Customs Union is lunacy. No independent trade deals, all run by Brussels. It is a lunatic solution.
I think you can make a case for two years in the customs union (assuming it's a treaty with an explicit two year length). Otherwise we effectively lose all the existing EU arrangements and spend the next few years getting them back again. Simpler to agree 1/1/19 - EFTA/EEA + Customs Union; 1/1/21, exit Customs Unions; 1/6/22 referendum on whether to remain in EFTA/EEA.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
The chances of the EU agreeing that as temporary arrangement are very low, I think. They wouldn't go through the two year treaty process only to drag out the uncertainty. The reason for them accepting us into the EEA, at least, and possibly also into a customs union, is that it derisks Brexit for them. If it doesn't do that, they wouldn't be interested.
I'm sorry but I think that's tosh.
The EU would be spared the hard choice of working out how to make up for our lost cash, as we'd still be paying in the near term.
They would also be able to have the hope that - five years in - we came back snivelling saying "oh, thinking about it, leaving is much harder than we thought it would be".
They already have that. We're locked into a two year process than can only end in a transition deal where the full acquis would apply.
There's a country of considerable wealth and influence that has decided (via referendum) on an open border with the EU. It's not even a member of the EEA.
18 months ago if you mention politics to a group of under 30's you would get silence and rolling eyes.
On Thursday night INSIDE NIGHTCLUBS there were TV screens showing David Dimbleby and various talking heads dissecting the election results. They stopped the music to play the counts being announced
Looks like there probably won't be another election for at least a couple of years. Tories from all wings of the party don't want to risk Corbyn and McDonnell getting into office.
You are the one who clearly doesn't understand the basic institutions and how they work which is why I am having to try and educate you.
You clearly don't understand why the customs union is essential to International manufacturing supply chains
But I can't understand it for you. You will have to work it out
I am shown three doors...
LOL. I must admit I had forgotten quite how dumb Scott was in spite of everyone trying to help him on that one. I suppose it is mean to pick on him when he is clearly so lacking in basic intelligence.
Has anybody been keeping an eye on the swings in Cornwall ? Ed Miliband's good work about organisation is giving fruit.
We are becoming the second party in that county. Soon we will win seats when we start to squeeze the LD votes.
Like many places, Cornwall saw challengers entrenched.
So, the Labour Party made progress in SE Cornwall, Cambourne, Truro & Falmouth and Newquay & St Austell. But it went backwards (relative to the LDs) in St Ives and North Cornwall.
Cambourne is a real shot for the Labour Party next time around. But St Ives looks the most likely seat to change hands next time around.
It could probably all happen in the US too. They could buy kit from a German manufacturer, made in Poland, and fly someone out to fix it too.
They couldn't manufacture parts for a French customer to fit to an Italian aircraft with no permits, restrictions or bureaucracy in the US
We can do it in the customs union
We can do it in the Single Market without being in the Customs Union.
The collective loss of UK productivity from so many intelligent people wasting time chosing to wrestle with issues like this must be colossal. Just imagine how much better off we'd be if we just accepted that we were an EU member and got on with it.
Looks like there probably won't be another election for at least a couple of years. Tories from all wings of the party don't want to risk Corbyn and McDonnell getting into office.
I agree. I think that, although Mrs May is quite possibly replaced in the autumn, we will be the other side of the Brexit negotiations before we go to the polls again. By May 2019 there is every chance that there is much falling out about what deal we have ended up with and we up with a GE.
Looks like there probably won't be another election for at least a couple of years. Tories from all wings of the party don't want to risk Corbyn and McDonnell getting into office.
Sensible - get May to do the dirty work then replace her with someone who might actually win or at least restrict Corbyn to a rainbow coalition.
Comments
A major study was done on the effects of the TGV system on French cities in 2007 which found that rather than causing growth in the outlying regions of France it actually sucked yet more business into Paris and caused even more centralisation. Overall there was no appreciable growth in many of the cities as a result of the connection to the TGV system.
I am not opposed to infrastructure projects. I am opposed to those which will do little or nothing to stimulate growth outside London.
The best the Tories can hope for is to appoint PM material as leader (I don't see any serious contenders) and then to duke it out with Labour on policy. The personality card has been played and it backfired massively.
- Softer Brexit
- Cancel DUP deal
- Get RID of May. There's no way in hell the Tories can make ground with lost voters with her at the helm. She is permanently damaged, a total and utter walking disaster, who is politically tone deaf and has no self-awareness.
- Get someone half decent in who can explain Conservative policy and vision clearly and confidently, who is comfortable with communicating voters and who is self-aware.
- Focus more on conveying a positive vision for the country and addressing voters' concerns and less on personal attacks on Corbyn.
It's political correctness gone mad that an Englishman can't say what he feels.
Whatever happened to free speech?
The Tories' strategy of last resort - waiting for Corbyn to die of old age...
But the other is to actually get on with governing. Show themselves as the party of doing and (especially) Brexiting rather than simply protesting, and they might last longer than you think.
Given neither the DUP nor the SNP want an election in the near future, longer than you think might be a long time indeed.
From that Bloomberg article
Some of Theresa May’s most senior ministers are plotting to soften her plans for a hard Brexit, even suggesting the U.K. could stay in Europe’s single market and customs union, as the prime minister fights to stay in power.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-11/may-s-ministers-plot-softer-brexit-to-keep-u-k-in-single-market
This GE result has been a true blessing.
A decent Queen's speech and following budget could turn this mess around for the Tories as quicky as it enveloped them.
Leaving it would be lunacy
https://twitter.com/alastair_hart/status/873992775527804928
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/atticus-p8c75v8xf6z
Actually governing is difficult when you have 318 MPs and are only interested in talking with the DUP to prop your government up in an unstable confidence and supply agreement rather than engaging with other political parties. If May reached out to Labour, LDs, and other parties the Tories could come out of it well and be seen to working in the national interest. As it is she seeking to have the government propped up by a party that has social views that are a mile away from wider society.
Furthermore, as noted this weekend by @foxinsoxuk May does not have the skills to be able to do the kind of things to maintain a stable government at this time - mainly, being a good a horse-trading and negotiating. She has shown herself over her premiership to be a woman who isn't interested in a collegiate approach of listening to others but has instead relied on a small cabal of advisors.
DUP nor the SNP not wanting an election just means longer period of political turmoil for the Tories if things do not change.
OxWAB was a strongly Remain area, lots of politically active (but unable to vote) non-British Europeans who got involved, all co-ordinated by a well-oiled local organisation still in place from the Evan Harris days. There were noticeably less Conservative posters around - and don't forget *that* visit by Theresa May early in the campaign.
How many cars do they manufacture?
Oh
As usual you are talking bollocks.
Towards the end people had become really pissed off with May and decided a vote for Corbyn was a hit to nothing. Why his support has surged since is merely down to momentum and success breeding success.
People who only saw an anti May candidate took a second look and quite liked what they saw..
Lab lost in 1951 because of continuing austerity, and both of Wilsons victories as well as Blairs took place at times of economic growth.
Anecdotally, I must have door-stepped around 500 people during the campaign (Brentford & Isleworth). The idea that Corbyn was safe to vote for because he couldn't win never came up. I think seasoned nerds like us tend to forget that the vast majority of people have no idea what the polls, forecasts, odds, markets, etc. are saying. They voted seeing no reason why Corbyn couldn't win. Indeed, May even told them that he could be PM if only she lost 6 seats. To the ordinary punter, that possibility wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as outlandish as it sounded here.
For the last two years especially The Telegraph has been particularly unreadable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40238501
Edit - He should be free to post now, the right unban button wasn't pressed by the looks of it.
But staying in the Customs Union would take away an important part of our ability to grow as part of the world economy. We would still be held back by having our trade controlled by the EU. It is dumb.
It would minimise the risk of a sudden 'heart attack' exit, and allow us to make an informed decision after we've already made progress in building our own trade relationships, and once we've already began to pivot.
Stop making a twat of yourself and learn some facts.
Leaving the Single Market, but staying in the Customs Union, seems a sensible way forward to me, which would deliver on what the country thought they voted for.
https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/873913966107533313
You could equally point to large chunks of the UK with similar sized population that... ooohhh.. don't make cars either.
We can do it in the customs union
I'm a Brexiteer, but let's not pretend leaving the Customs Union is cost free. Some Norwegian firms actually chose to pay tariffs on goods that are technically exempt under EFTA because that process is quicker than having to prove that they are exempt under rules of origin.
Which kind of proves my point
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/poll-americans-trust-james-comey-over-trump_us_593c4814e4b0b13f2c6b1b69
"That's right I must have answered about 12 emails asking me to volunteer to phone, each time I said yes and each time they never got back to me. Also know that my children 20-28, were getting loads of facebook messages from labour. Every time I said something they would have an answer from the propaganda they were being fed. We were hopeless and complacent, made us look arrogant." From Conhome.
The EU would be spared the hard choice of working out how to make up for our lost cash, as we'd still be paying in the near term.
They would also be able to have the hope that - five years in - we came back snivelling saying "oh, thinking about it, leaving is much harder than we thought it would be".
It also minimises the economic disruption to a bunch of countries that have only recently left a near decade long economic stagnation. (And don't forget, Macron and Merkel are ultimately pragmatists who want to be re-elected. 3% economic growth while we do 3.5% = re-election. -0.5% while we do -2% = booted out by their populations.)
But I can't understand it for you. You will have to work it out
The alternative is a time and scope limited extension of current arrangements without a definite final arrangement in place before the extension runs out. That creates a lot of uncertainty and one thing is sure - we won't be ready to leave in two years' time.
In summary EEA is an expensive and unsatisfactory replacement for EU membership, but it does bring a degree of certainty. I think both sides can live with that, given the alternative.
There's a country of considerable wealth and influence that has decided (via referendum) on an open border with the EU. It's not even a member of the EEA.
Let's not conflate issues unnecessarily.
We are becoming the second party in that county. Soon we will win seats when we start to squeeze the LD votes.
18 months ago if you mention politics to a group of under 30's you would get silence and rolling eyes.
On Thursday night INSIDE NIGHTCLUBS there were TV screens showing David Dimbleby and various talking heads dissecting the election results. They stopped the music to play the counts being announced
Very impressive to be fair.
So, the Labour Party made progress in SE Cornwall, Cambourne, Truro & Falmouth and Newquay & St Austell. But it went backwards (relative to the LDs) in St Ives and North Cornwall.
Cambourne is a real shot for the Labour Party next time around. But St Ives looks the most likely seat to change hands next time around.
Hesteltine is right to call it a cancer.
By May 2019 there is every chance that there is much falling out about what deal we have ended up with and we up with a GE.