I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
Except, in our system of parliamentary democracy, the means of implementing the result were written into Party manifestos at a General Election, and the same voters told them to shove it
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the election result can simply be parked
You're going to get dizzy with all this spinning.
The election result is not going to be parked - it was to determine the make up of the HoC, from which a government is formed.
Or do CutNPaste Remainers need a lesson in how the British constitution works, again....
Two party politics is alive and well in the UK. And both main parties are doing just fine.
Labour is somewhat resurgent but is still led by a now unassailable Corbyn. Corbyn is still Corbyn and toxic to many. You'd think they had just won an election! I don't think 2022 (or sooner) is a walkover. They might well win next time but you can't count on it.
The Tories have just screwed up a GE. Actually, no, the PM has just screwed up a GE. The manifesto, the Miliband-lite nonsense, the hubris, the inarticulacy, the roboticism. It was her. And yet they still got 43%. The core Tory brand is in fine health. They just need to ditch the succubus at an opportune moment and rediscover some senisble policies.
Next GE completely open to play for. (But only for the Tories if she's gone well ahead of time).
Corbyn will only fight the next election as Labour leader if it is comparatively soon. If it isn't he'll stand down once changes to the leadership election rules have been made. Should that happen, Labour will go into the next election with a left-wing leader who does not have Corbyn's baggage. If the Tories have buggered up Brexit, Labour will then win a big majority.
Corbyn's charisma (!) outweighs his baggage. He'll stay on.
It's not a matter of charisma, it's a matter of age. He'll be 73 in 2022; 78 in 2027. If he were 15 years younger, then obviously he'd be going on and on.
He's young and healthy enough to stand in 2022. 2027 is stretching it!
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
Also, although the rest of the EU would generally like Britain to stay, they're not going to want to go through all the trouble of negotiating, then have Brexit cancelled, only to have it rise from its grave again a few years down the line. If the British government decides not to leave, it really needs a referendum to persuade everybody that it's not going to change its mind again.
What *might* be possible is just to extend the deadline then keep extending it until everyone gets used to the fact that it isn't happening. A few important people on the EU side have said they want to get it over with quickly, but if there's one thing the EU is good at, it's kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem will go away.
Technical question: Let's say for the sake of argument that the UK has a government that's able to survive no-confidence votes, but it isn't able to get EU-related legislation through. What happens then? Presumably a lot of UK legislation is written on the premise that Britain is a member of the EU, but Article 50 has already been invoked, so Britain seems to be leaving unless somebody actively does something to stop it happening?
So if parliament is basically disfunctional, is it correct to say that the default outcome is car-crash Brexit, with added confusion?
Yes.
You've clearly highlighted one of the structural faultlines running through the Conservative Crackpot Coalition of Chaos.There are about 50/60 hardline BREXIT Con MP, a vast swath of pragmatic BREXITeers and about 20 remainiacs. Added to which there are the 13 SCON's who want as much access to the single market as possible. And then there is the DUP BREXIT and the open border with the south.
Messy Central.
There's another thing which is really important.
Jeremy Corbyn wants a hard Brexit.
But he wants to be Prime Minister more.
Even if he agrees 100% with Mrs May, he won't help her. Because if the Conservative government loses votes, and appears disunited, and potentially falls... then he'll be Prime Minister.
And that matters more to him than anything else.
Does he? I recall many assurances (some from Corbynites) pre GE that this was not the case, rather Jezza wanted to remake the party in his own campaigning, radical activist image. Though of course now he appears to have succeeded at that, perhaps he's raised his sights.
Once you have a taste of power, more power is always more tasty.
Mr. B, people get carried away. It was, until Vettel pitted for a second stop, relatively high probability but even so.
Mr. Meeks, I disagree on the terrorism point, and think it daft to raise it, but he's right that if people think winning votes don't count and that democracy can be ignored, they'll become disenchanted and perhaps try other things.
Seeing that the Ultra-Remainers* are in full spin mode again this morning, it is my duty to remind you that EVERY time you've thought events will lead to the cancellation of Brexit, you've been proved wrong.
EVERY time.
*If you're not even agreeing with Alastair Meeks on Brexit, you know you're outside the mainstream of even Remain political thought....
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
Except, in our system of parliamentary democracy, the means of implementing the result were written into Party manifestos at a General Election, and the same voters told them to shove it
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the election result can simply be parked
Both Labour and Tories have accepted the referendum result and are commited to implementing it. How difficult is that to understand? It's not exactly Monty Hall
Labour were committed to the Tories implementing it.
Technical question: Let's say for the sake of argument that the UK has a government that's able to survive no-confidence votes, but it isn't able to get EU-related legislation through. What happens then? Presumably a lot of UK legislation is written on the premise that Britain is a member of the EU, but Article 50 has already been invoked, so Britain seems to be leaving unless somebody actively does something to stop it happening?
So if parliament is basically disfunctional, is it correct to say that the default outcome is car-crash Brexit, with added confusion?
Yes.
You've clearly highlighted one of the structural faultlines running through the Conservative Crackpot Coalition of Chaos.There are about 50/60 hardline BREXIT Con MP, a vast swath of pragmatic BREXITeers and about 20 remainiacs. Added to which there are the 13 SCON's who want as much access to the single market as possible. And then there is the DUP BREXIT and the open border with the south.
Messy Central.
There's another thing which is really important.
Jeremy Corbyn wants a hard Brexit.
But he wants to be Prime Minister more.
Even if he agrees 100% with Mrs May, he won't help her. Because if the Conservative government loses votes, and appears disunited, and potentially falls... then he'll be Prime Minister.
And that matters more to him than anything else.
Ambitious politician trims position shocker !!
But you are correct. Labour requires more than anything else patience. They will let the Tories dangle in the wind as the DUP desperately hold the corpse up and wait until Alrene walks away.
What a clusterf*ck May has delivered to her party.
The problem for Remainers is that they are not united. They cannot decide whether to try to stop Brexit altogether (The Lib Dem/Blair/Heseltine position) or whether to to try to keep Britain in the Single Market, but outside the EU (The SNP/Anna Soubry/Yvette Cooper position).
Meanwhile the Brexiteers are very clear that nothing less than being outside of the Customs Union, as well as the Single Market, will do, and that anything else would be an anti-democratic travesty. Unity of purpose has a strength in this sort of situation, and of course now that Article 50 has been triggered it is the default option that will occur in March 2019, unless someone has the political clout to negotiate something else before then.
And the problem for the Conservative party is that if we do leave without a deal it will be wiped out in a general election.
I was in Majorca when the shit hit the fan on election night.
I don't think it is any exaggeration to say the result has caused a genuine political crisis. The news this morning that business confidence has plummeted will affect all of us, whichever side we are on.
Something needs to be done, and quick.
Now, I've always been non-tribal and advocated non-tribal politics. I think it would be very grown-up and reassuring if May arranged some sort of grand-assembly, where former PMs, former chancellors, party bigwigs from all sides etc, sit around a table and thrash out a way forward.
Politicians on all sides have a duty to serve the public. We need some extraordinary action.
Nah. It's the British political system. As you may have heard Cons politician after Cons politician note on the radio: "the voters have put us in this position."
And indeed they have.
They are now about to understand what the consequences of that decision are.
You're right. The bastards. Perhaps politicians should stop asking them important questions when they're clearly ill equipped to give intelligent answers.
Not at all - keep asking. F*ck off "I told you so banners" to be displayed at roundabouts in Sleaford can be bulk ordered.
The problem for Remainers is that they are not united. They cannot decide whether to try to stop Brexit altogether (The Lib Dem/Blair/Heseltine position) or whether to to try to keep Britain in the Single Market, but outside the EU (The SNP/Anna Soubry/Yvette Cooper position).
Meanwhile the Brexiteers are very clear that nothing less than being outside of the Customs Union, as well as the Single Market, will do, and that anything else would be an anti-democratic travesty. Unity of purpose has a strength in this sort of situation, and of course now that Article 50 has been triggered it is the default option that will occur in March 2019, unless someone has the political clout to negotiate something else before then.
And the problem for the Conservative party is that if we do leave without a deal it will be wiped out in a general election.
Mr. Observer, do you think holding a referendum and then voting for it to be implemented in the Commons and then not doing so will reinforce trust in the democratic process?
Just denying the result would be an insane, contemptible way to go.
If someone did want to reverse, then (as well as EU agreement on revoking Article 50) there would need to be either a GE with that at the heart of it, or another referendum. Just ignoring what 17 million people voted for is a very dangerous route down which to go.
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
Except, in our system of parliamentary democracy, the means of implementing the result were written into Party manifestos at a General Election, and the same voters told them to shove it
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the election result can simply be parked
Both Labour and Tories have accepted the referendum result and are commited to implementing it. How difficult is that to understand? It's not exactly Monty Hall
Is Switzerland outside the EU? Is Norway?
It's not quite as straightforward as you make out.
Incidentally, I think the media need to change how they cover election campaigns.
The likes of Beth Rigby, Jon Craig, Kevin Maguire, Dan Hodges, John Snow and Norman Smith... those guys just love the bloodsport of it all. They love hyperbole and jumping on any 'gaffes' or 'splits'. There is very little attempt to factually explain the (sometimes complex) detail of what's on offer.
The result of this is that people like me (no great sage, let me tell you!!) was getting lots of messages on Facebook on Thursday night asking me to explain what was happening.
I probably have more young friends than anyone on this site by dint of my rugby coaching associations, and Corbyn certainly got the youngsters motivated. But, and I say this affectionately, most of them are fucking clueless and believed Corbyn was some sort of Messiah.
I was getting asked questions like:
- If Corbyn won, why isn't he Prime Minister? - What is a hung parliament? - Will the NHS still be free tomorrow? - If Theresa May lost how is she still PM? - Will my taxes go up? - Will I have to pay more for school dinners next week?
I'm just an ordinary valleys bloke, but I felt like a GCSE Politics teacher. I'm DEFINITELY no oracle. But I was sat pissed in a Majorca bar trying to explain and reassure.
That day I'd been sent a Facebook viral message listing the evil things the Tories had done to the country. On the list was 'THE TORIES HAVE DOUBLED UNEMPLOYMENT SINCE 2010'. It had been shared thousands of times. It was blatantly untrue. But what's the point of even trying to counter-argue?
Social media usurped mainstream media during this campaign, I don't care what anyone says. And social media can be a malevolent force. The mainstream media outlets need to start waging a communication/fact based campaign on the social media sites and wrestle back control of fact-based communication.
We've ended up with a political crisis. Theresa May deserves lots of the blame for that, but so does the naughty social media campaign (reminiscent of the Leave EU one) that spread blatant lies. It would do us all a favour if there was more explanation of policies from our journalistic classes than sensationalism over the inter-party bloodsport.
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
It turns on whether EEA/EFTA is perceived as Brexit or not.
We get out of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (by far the largest item in the EU budget), but eastern Europeans would still be able to come here to work.
It's finely balanced, but I don't think that Remainers are prepared to sell it as leaving the EU, because they are trying to sell it to themselves as remaining in the EU.
We've ended up with a political crisis. Theresa May deserves lots of the blame for that, but so does the naughty social media campaign (reminiscent of the Leave EU one) that spread blatant lies. It would do us all a favour if there was more explanation of policies from our journalistic classes than sensationalism over the inter-party bloodsport.
That is the key
During the Brexit campaign, Boris and Gove told blatant lies with impunity. David Cameron allegedly refused to launch an all out attack on them personally, and that has to some extent legitimised that model of campaigning
Again, amusing to see Brexiteers whining about Labour using all of their tricks and promise of freebies to win votes.
A thought on the comments about Labour saying they won when they didn't- of course they are. The media are entirely focused on the smell of blood at number 10, labour have an opportunity once again to push a narrative and have it gain traction without much scrutiny. It's about seeding the idea of labour and Corbyn as winners on a wave of public enthusiasm. Why on earth wouldn't they push that whilst they can get away with it?
They can push it all they like, but they don't have the numbers in the Commons.
Indeed. However they just need to get the wind set in their sails and it will carry them home. One more push etc etc. The weakness of the Tories is only going to assist that.
Only if the Conservatives decide to give up.
I think you underestimate the public anger at the result and how unnecessary this all was. It's not about the Conservatives any more, it's about the electorates anger at them and willingness to listen to a populist left wing agenda. Labour are on the up with divisions forgotten, the tories are flailing about and will continue to do so even if May gets through this week.
13.6 m people still voted Conservative.
How many of that 13.6 million did not vote for the Conservatives but against Corbyn or for other non positive reasons ?
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
It turns on whether EEA/EFTA is perceived as Brexit or not.
We get out of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (by far the largest item in the EU budget), but eastern Europeans would still be able to come here to work.
It's finely balanced, but I don't think that Remainers are prepared to sell it as leaving the EU, because they are trying to sell it to themselves as remaining in the EU.
At this stage, I think most everyone should grab EEA/EFTA with both hands. The Cons could then spin it any old way they wanted to. What could Lab say?
Its a year next friday since the referendum, great to see some still wailing hysterically, I thought it would only last a few weeks.
Actually, I just want to know what the end result is going to be so I can decide how to structure things for the foreseeable future. If it is hard Brexit then I will probably move a lot of stuff to Ireland. If it is EEA / FoM then I can keep everything in the UK.
I do not really want to wait 2 years and see if the economy goes to hell whilst I am stuck waiting.
We've ended up with a political crisis. Theresa May deserves lots of the blame for that, but so does the naughty social media campaign (reminiscent of the Leave EU one) that spread blatant lies. It would do us all a favour if there was more explanation of policies from our journalistic classes than sensationalism over the inter-party bloodsport.
That is the key
During the Brexit campaign, Boris and Gove told blatant lies with impunity. David Cameron allegedly refused to launch an all out attack on them personally, and that has to some extent legitimised that model of campaigning
Again, amusing to see Brexiteers whining about Labour using all of their tricks and promise of freebies to win votes.
It's great to see how the swivel-eyed, Brexit right is reacting to its loss of narrative control.
To be fair, it is a worry. You only have to see how quickly the Tommy Robinson vids were going viral after the terrorist attacks. Link his anti-Islam stuff with the loonier-branch of the Brexiteers, sprinkle in a few million quids worth of Aaron Banks's money, and you could end up with some serious problems.
And I say this as a sovereignty Brexiteer who would willingly push it back a year right now. I see the spectre of a Corbyn govt as more dangerous to the UK than a managed Brexit.
Two party politics is alive and well in the UK. And both main parties are doing just fine.
Labour is somewhat resurgent but is still led by a now unassailable Corbyn. Corbyn is still Corbyn and toxic to many. You'd think they had just won an election! I don't think 2022 (or sooner) is a walkover. They might well win next time but you can't count on it.
The Tories have just screwed up a GE. Actually, no, the PM has just screwed up a GE. The manifesto, the Miliband-lite nonsense, the hubris, the inarticulacy, the roboticism. It was her. And yet they still got 43%. The core Tory brand is in fine health. They just need to ditch the succubus at an opportune moment and rediscover some senisble policies.
Next GE completely open to play for. (But only for the Tories if she's gone well ahead of time).
The LD ploy of playing both sides against the middle is finished, pro tem, along with tactical voting. We now have two parties each containing a coalition of political positions. No better illustration than Brexit.
Slogans: people have commented on the vacuousness of the "strong and stable" slogan - compare the brilliance of "take control" - and I think that "for the many not the few" was also potent, though the implied tinge of menace to make the pips squeak does not augur well should Corbyn and crew come to power. We seem to be heading in full circle back to the 70s when we joined the Common Market and the shambles of Heath's minority government.
Its a year next friday since the referendum, great to see some still wailing hysterically, I thought it would only last a few weeks.
Actually, I just want to know what the end result is going to be so I can decide how to structure things for the foreseeable future. If it is hard Brexit then I will probably move a lot of stuff to Ireland. If it is EEA / FoM then I can keep everything in the UK.
I do not really want to wait 2 years and see if the economy goes to hell whilst I am stuck waiting.
Good for you, 99% of the population don't have those concerns, the referendum was a year ago and they moved on. Of course they're not surprised that useless politicians won't get on with it.
We've ended up with a political crisis. Theresa May deserves lots of the blame for that, but so does the naughty social media campaign (reminiscent of the Leave EU one) that spread blatant lies. It would do us all a favour if there was more explanation of policies from our journalistic classes than sensationalism over the inter-party bloodsport.
That is the key
During the Brexit campaign, Boris and Gove told blatant lies with impunity. David Cameron allegedly refused to launch an all out attack on them personally, and that has to some extent legitimised that model of campaigning
Again, amusing to see Brexiteers whining about Labour using all of their tricks and promise of freebies to win votes.
Despicable...
I'll accept some of that, but Banks and Farage over at Leave EU were far guiltier of rabble-rousing than Boris and Gove.
Boris and Gove gave many intellectual reasons for leaving and with should've disassociated themselves with the £350m for the NHS bollocks.
But look at Osborne and his emergency budget crap. He knew that was an outright lie and effectively sacrificed his career by coming out with it (as a commendable act of last ditch loyalty to Cameron, I'll add... but all the same, he knew he was lying).
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
It turns on whether EEA/EFTA is perceived as Brexit or not.
We get out of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (by far the largest item in the EU budget), but eastern Europeans would still be able to come here to work.
It's finely balanced, but I don't think that Remainers are prepared to sell it as leaving the EU, because they are trying to sell it to themselves as remaining in the EU.
At this stage, I think most everyone should grab EEA/EFTA with both hands. The Cons could then spin it any old way they wanted to. What could Lab say?
Yes I agree with that, even as a Leaver since back in the days of the Referendum party I think we should go with EEA/EFTA and announce it as soon as possible.
Just a quick word on hard Brexit, I don't see that as anything other than a negotiating position. The opening salvo leaked to us is that the EU want 100 billion euros, and we still have to abide by the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which I'm sure the likes of Barnier know is ludicrous. So our side leak something to the effect of 'bollocks to that, we're off if that is all there is on offer'.
A compromise somewhere in between those two positions is what we sell settle at. Hopefully.
@pkelso: Number of EU nurses registering to practice in UK down 96% since Brexit vote, according to figs obtained by Health Foundation
£350m a week for the NHS...
For £1,000 a day agency staff !
If wards start closing due to lack of staff, £1,000 a day might look good value
There is a second issue there - the public sector IR35 changes that started in April and how NHS Improvement reacted to them has caused some interesting short term issues that now seem to be hitting the medium term.
The grand total of deductions was thus £2,288, which is 27%.
The equivalent salary today, 121% of the current average, would be £31,711. According to http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php , that salary would be £23,879.17 after student loan deductions, which is a deduction rate of...25%.
That includes a stoppage of £965 for the student loan repayment. I am not sure what the source of that figure is but it seems too low; it suggests a debt of about £15,000. Most owe more than that do they not? Repaid at that rate a graduate would be paying more in deductions than I was. £25,000 over 25 years at 4% would mean a graduate of today had the same percentage left after tax as I did.
So on the same economics as those of 30 years ago it seems to me that graduates are better off. Even those whose degrees don't get them a graduate job are not actually worse off are they? And best off of all are those in the non-graduate job without the degree.
I'm obviously missing something here.
Well, the obvious thing you're missing is that living costs, especially housing are far higher in real terms than they were for you in the 1980s.
You also don't appear to be aware of how student loan repayments work. They have nothing to do with the size of the debt or the interest rate but are determined by the borrower's gross salary (9% on everything earned over £21k)
Most students are currently leaving university with a debt of £40k with an interest rate of 3-6% (the exact rate again depends on your salary ranging between RPI+0 and RPI+3)
So the Tories need to do something about housing costs. I think the subsidy they could wear would be a large house building program even if this needs direct state intervention. The success in the past of Tories has been amongst homeowners. The fact that the educated and employed are struggling to secure accommodation has to be a drag on their vote. The other thing would be to further support costs for nursery care for working families. The costs of this are unbelievably high and hinder families (mainly mothers) in the jobs market.
A thought on the comments about Labour saying they won when they didn't- of course they are. The media are entirely focused on the smell of blood at number 10, labour have an opportunity once again to push a narrative and have it gain traction without much scrutiny. It's about seeding the idea of labour and Corbyn as winners on a wave of public enthusiasm. Why on earth wouldn't they push that whilst they can get away with it?
They can push it all they like, but they don't have the numbers in the Commons.
Indeed. However they just need to get the wind set in their sails and it will carry them home. One more push etc etc. The weakness of the Tories is only going to assist that.
Only if the Conservatives decide to give up.
I think you underestimate the public anger at the result and how unnecessary this all was. It's not about the Conservatives any more, it's about the electorates anger at them and willingness to listen to a populist left wing agenda. Labour are on the up with divisions forgotten, the tories are flailing about and will continue to do so even if May gets through this week.
13.6 m people still voted Conservative.
How many of that 13.6 million did not vote for the Conservatives but against Corbyn or for other non positive reasons ?
Indeed. The 13.6m contain a lot motivated by very specific negative fears, as many PB'ers spent months telling us. Whether these will exist, or be as strong, next time is a genuine question.
There will be electoral damage arising from the election result itself, and any ensuing chaos.
Any deal with the DUP carries no electoral upside for the Tories.
The inevitable steer towards softer Brexit might breathe some life back into UKIP and lose the Tories votes from their loonier fringe.
And the narrative is now running against the Conservatives, whose reputation is trashed. Who now is speaking about Conservative government lasting through the next decade?
I don't see how as a matter of democracy the referendum result can simply be parked in the absence of a dramatic change in public opinion that has yet to take place. As Keiran says, it's possible but it remains a remote chance right now.
If it ever did happen, "all around the hills the hosts of Mordor raged" would look like a vicar's tea party in comparison to some of the comments we'd get downthread.
It turns on whether EEA/EFTA is perceived as Brexit or not.
We get out of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (by far the largest item in the EU budget), but eastern Europeans would still be able to come here to work.
It's finely balanced, but I don't think that Remainers are prepared to sell it as leaving the EU, because they are trying to sell it to themselves as remaining in the EU.
At this stage, I think most everyone should grab EEA/EFTA with both hands. The Cons could then spin it any old way they wanted to. What could Lab say?
Oh, personally, as a remainer, I agree. But David Davis, Liam Fox and probably at least 50 Tory MPs certainly would not agree. So it's just not enough for Labour to struggle to criticise the policy. A Conservative Prime Minister would need the active support of the Labour leadership.
And as rcs1000 pointed out, Corbyn is not inclined to dig the Conservatives out of the hole they find themselves in right now. He would rather fight another general election then provide Parliamentary support for EEA/EFTA membership.
"the economy is heading for the rocks in a way that few have yet registered. Whereas in 2016 the economy defied the Brexit referendum to grow at the fastest pace in the G7, in the first quarter of this year it was the slowest. Unemployment is at its lowest in decades, but with inflation at a three-year high and rising, real wages are falling. Tax revenues and growth will suffer as inward investment falls and net migration of skilled Europeans tails off. Voters are blissfully unaware of the coming crunch. Just when they have signalled at the ballot box that they have had enough of austerity, they are about to face even harder times."
To understand the sensational outcome of the British election, one must ask a basic question. What happens when phony populism collides with the real thing?
What do you Brits actually want? And the answer is that the Brits want what they can’t possibly have. They want everything to change and everything to go as before. They want an end to immigration—except for all the immigrants they need to run their economy and health service. They want it to be 1900, when Britain was a superpower and didn’t have to make messy compromises with foreigners.
To take power, May had to pretend that she, too, dreams these impossible dreams. And that led her to embrace a phony populism in which the narrow and ambiguous majority who voted for Brexit under false pretences are be reimagined as “the people.”
This is not conservatism—it is pure Rousseau.
May’s appeal to “the people” as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn’s appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with national destiny but for a good school, a functioning National Health Service, and decent public transport. Phony populism came up against a more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the young and the marginalized that they had something to come out and vote for.
In electoral terms, of course, the two forces have pretty much canceled each other out.
Please can they go and find out what is on the table from the EU and end this pointless internal debate between and within parties. They have had a year to decide what they wnt on both sides when it's clear what were getting then these other arguments can start. I really don't believe this is a negotiation it's going to be take it or leave it.
Reflecting on the train this morning - yesterday Corbyn and May were asked similar questions about still being there in five years time. While Jezza batted it away with humour, Tezzie looked constipated as she referred to something she said in a roundabout way at some point during the election campaign. The contrast is getting starker by the day.
Please can they go and find out what is on the table from the EU and end this pointless internal debate between and within parties. They have had a year to decide what they wnt on both sides when it's clear what were getting then these other arguments can start. I really don't believe this is a negotiation it's going to be take it or leave it.
It's not that simple though is it? According to the EU we have to agree to pay €100bn before we get to hear the terms of the trade deal they are willing to offer.
To understand the sensational outcome of the British election, one must ask a basic question. What happens when phony populism collides with the real thing?
What do you Brits actually want? And the answer is that the Brits want what they can’t possibly have. They want everything to change and everything to go as before. They want an end to immigration—except for all the immigrants they need to run their economy and health service. They want it to be 1900, when Britain was a superpower and didn’t have to make messy compromises with foreigners.
To take power, May had to pretend that she, too, dreams these impossible dreams. And that led her to embrace a phony populism in which the narrow and ambiguous majority who voted for Brexit under false pretences are be reimagined as “the people.”
This is not conservatism—it is pure Rousseau.
May’s appeal to “the people” as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn’s appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with national destiny but for a good school, a functioning National Health Service, and decent public transport. Phony populism came up against a more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the young and the marginalized that they had something to come out and vote for.
In electoral terms, of course, the two forces have pretty much canceled each other out.
"There were three problems. Firstly, May demanded her enormous majority so that she could ride out into the Brexit battle without having to worry about mutterings in the ranks behind her. But she has no clue what the battle is supposed to be for. Because May doesn’t actually believe in Brexit, she’s improvising a way forward very roughly sketched out by other people. She’s a terrible actor mouthing a script in which there is no plot and no credible ending that is not an anti-climax. Brexit is a back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the post-imperial make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there’s almost nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country with little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off from its biggest trading partner and most important political alliance."
Judging by reactions at work George Osborne is more unpopular than Corbyn and May combined. I don't see any path for him to return to politics, his bridges are well and truly burned.
Yep - May's only handful of remaining supporters seem to be here, on PB.
Corrected for you.
You still don't get it do you?
Your girl – and her curtain-twitching, meddling wing of the party – has been utterly humiliated.
Your sycophantic greenhorn idolatry ("I can't wait for those exit poll bongs") for a woman who has achieved nothing has been brutally exposed.
A period of humility from you and your europhobic, socially conservative, statist fellow travellers who have wrecked the hard work Cameron and Osborne put in modernising the Tories would be greatly appreciated. As it is, you seem determined to steer your party back into the wilderness.
That's the problem with young fogies like you. They just don't know their history.
Definitely not. One thing majority agree on is ending freedom of movement. Single market access much more open for debate.
I think that is blatantly untrue.
48% voted for the staus quo, which includes freedom of movement. It would be totally disingenuous to say that the entire 52% voted to end freedom of movement. Some voted to take back sovereignty, some voted for 350m a week to be spent on the NHS, some just voted to stick it up Cameron.
The steam is gradually going out of Brexit, it is only the media, (especially the BBC now their love in with UKIP has ended), and May keeping it alive. I suspect if the vote was re-run NOW Remain would win comfortably, 55- 45.
Reflecting on the train this morning - yesterday Corbyn and May were asked similar questions about still being there in five years time. While Jezza batted it away with humour, Tezzie looked constipated as she referred to something she said in a roundabout way at some point during the election campaign. The contrast is getting starker by the day.
Corbyn is a dangerous idiot. But he's a human. And can be quite self effacing and amusing.
May is a robot. A charmless, dull, cold, barren, humourless, repetitive automaton.
Yes there is a stark difference. They are both profoundly flawed in different ways. Corbyn looks more personally appealing. You have no idea how painful that is for me to type. The Tories need to ditch her at the first opportunity. Loyalty to May will kill them electorally.
The steam is gradually going out of Brexit, it is only the media, (especially the BBC now their love in with UKIP has ended), and May keeping it alive. I suspect if the vote was re-run NOW Remain would win comfortably, 55- 45.
There was only one vote that mattered. The trackers suggest minds have not changed. I accepted the hard/soft debate will roll on though.
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
The Conservatives lost 13 MPs and have gained 10 DUP MPs.
The DUP MPs are hard line Brexiteers.
Some of the lost 13 Conservatives will have been Remainers.
Surely this make sBrexit more likely not less likely.
PS Do we know if the 13 lost MPs were in seats where UKIP stood against them, indicating they were pro EU?
You seem to assume the Tories just had 13 losses, not a much larger tally of English losses balanced off by gains in Scotland. The gainers in England are remainer LDs and mostly remainer Labour. Meanwhile the Scottish Tory contingent are already signalling opposition to their party's original hard Brexit approach. As are, at least in respect of movement and trade across their own border, the DUP.
However when you were told by all the great and good that your party was finished and to be destroyed forever with a 150 majority maybe it's about time our political commentary Westminster types started to learn something including many on here me as well.It would be nice to see some acknowledgement they were not even close with their assesment and just followed the herd.
However when you were told by all the great and good that your party was finished and to be destroyed forever with a 150 majority maybe it's about time our political commentary Westminster types started to learn something including many on here me as well.It would be nice to see some acknowledgement they were not even close with their assesment and just followed the herd.
We've ended up with a political crisis. Theresa May deserves lots of the blame for that, but so does the naughty social media campaign (reminiscent of the Leave EU one) that spread blatant lies. It would do us all a favour if there was more explanation of policies from our journalistic classes than sensationalism over the inter-party bloodsport.
That is the key
During the Brexit campaign, Boris and Gove told blatant lies with impunity. David Cameron allegedly refused to launch an all out attack on them personally, and that has to some extent legitimised that model of campaigning
Again, amusing to see Brexiteers whining about Labour using all of their tricks and promise of freebies to win votes.
Despicable...
I'll accept some of that, but Banks and Farage over at Leave EU were far guiltier of rabble-rousing than Boris and Gove.
Boris and Gove gave many intellectual reasons for leaving and with should've disassociated themselves with the £350m for the NHS bollocks.
But look at Osborne and his emergency budget crap. He knew that was an outright lie and effectively sacrificed his career by coming out with it (as a commendable act of last ditch loyalty to Cameron, I'll add... but all the same, he knew he was lying).
Farage dissociated himself from the £350m NHS claim.
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Can you point me to this extreme hubris you are witnessing?
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Actually no. The more credible scenario is that the Tories become unpopular (the list of potential reasons being long and well known) and lose votes to the LibDems, or possibly LibDems and UKIPv2. Liberals only do well when the Tories are losing votes, and struggle when this isn't happening, as last week. The most likely outcome for the next GE right now is some kind of 1997 pattern of seats.
Comments
The election result is not going to be parked - it was to determine the make up of the HoC, from which a government is formed.
Or do CutNPaste Remainers need a lesson in how the British constitution works, again....
What *might* be possible is just to extend the deadline then keep extending it until everyone gets used to the fact that it isn't happening. A few important people on the EU side have said they want to get it over with quickly, but if there's one thing the EU is good at, it's kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem will go away.
Mr. Meeks, I disagree on the terrorism point, and think it daft to raise it, but he's right that if people think winning votes don't count and that democracy can be ignored, they'll become disenchanted and perhaps try other things.
Remedial democracy, again.
EVERY time.
*If you're not even agreeing with Alastair Meeks on Brexit, you know you're outside the mainstream of even Remain political thought....
But you are correct. Labour requires more than anything else patience. They will let the Tories dangle in the wind as the DUP desperately hold the corpse up and wait until Alrene walks away.
What a clusterf*ck May has delivered to her party.
Just denying the result would be an insane, contemptible way to go.
If someone did want to reverse, then (as well as EU agreement on revoking Article 50) there would need to be either a GE with that at the heart of it, or another referendum. Just ignoring what 17 million people voted for is a very dangerous route down which to go.
And the soft underbelly of Brexit is revealed again. It can't be delivered
It's not quite as straightforward as you make out.
The likes of Beth Rigby, Jon Craig, Kevin Maguire, Dan Hodges, John Snow and Norman Smith... those guys just love the bloodsport of it all. They love hyperbole and jumping on any 'gaffes' or 'splits'. There is very little attempt to factually explain the (sometimes complex) detail of what's on offer.
The result of this is that people like me (no great sage, let me tell you!!) was getting lots of messages on Facebook on Thursday night asking me to explain what was happening.
I probably have more young friends than anyone on this site by dint of my rugby coaching associations, and Corbyn certainly got the youngsters motivated. But, and I say this affectionately, most of them are fucking clueless and believed Corbyn was some sort of Messiah.
I was getting asked questions like:
- If Corbyn won, why isn't he Prime Minister?
- What is a hung parliament?
- Will the NHS still be free tomorrow?
- If Theresa May lost how is she still PM?
- Will my taxes go up?
- Will I have to pay more for school dinners next week?
I'm just an ordinary valleys bloke, but I felt like a GCSE Politics teacher. I'm DEFINITELY no oracle. But I was sat pissed in a Majorca bar trying to explain and reassure.
That day I'd been sent a Facebook viral message listing the evil things the Tories had done to the country. On the list was 'THE TORIES HAVE DOUBLED UNEMPLOYMENT SINCE 2010'. It had been shared thousands of times. It was blatantly untrue. But what's the point of even trying to counter-argue?
Social media usurped mainstream media during this campaign, I don't care what anyone says. And social media can be a malevolent force. The mainstream media outlets need to start waging a communication/fact based campaign on the social media sites and wrestle back control of fact-based communication.
We've ended up with a political crisis. Theresa May deserves lots of the blame for that, but so does the naughty social media campaign (reminiscent of the Leave EU one) that spread blatant lies. It would do us all a favour if there was more explanation of policies from our journalistic classes than sensationalism over the inter-party bloodsport.
It's finely balanced, but I don't think that Remainers are prepared to sell it as leaving the EU, because they are trying to sell it to themselves as remaining in the EU.
Vote Leave, give control to an unelected hereditary monarch.
During the Brexit campaign, Boris and Gove told blatant lies with impunity. David Cameron allegedly refused to launch an all out attack on them personally, and that has to some extent legitimised that model of campaigning
Again, amusing to see Brexiteers whining about Labour using all of their tricks and promise of freebies to win votes.
Despicable...
I do not really want to wait 2 years and see if the economy goes to hell whilst I am stuck waiting.
'All You Need Is Gove'
I came out with that gag a week ago.
Every post of yours reads like a job application.
And I say this as a sovereignty Brexiteer who would willingly push it back a year right now. I see the spectre of a Corbyn govt as more dangerous to the UK than a managed Brexit.
Slogans: people have commented on the vacuousness of the "strong and stable" slogan - compare the brilliance of "take control" - and I think that "for the many not the few" was also potent, though the implied tinge of menace to make the pips squeak does not augur well should Corbyn and crew come to power. We seem to be heading in full circle back to the 70s when we joined the Common Market and the shambles of Heath's minority government.
It's been voted for by the public, passed in the House of Commons, and committed to by both parties in their manifestos, I won't lose too much sleep.
As you Leavers always tell us - it is up to the government to determine what that means.
Would you be happy with us being in EEA/EFTA?
Boris and Gove gave many intellectual reasons for leaving and with should've disassociated themselves with the £350m for the NHS bollocks.
But look at Osborne and his emergency budget crap. He knew that was an outright lie and effectively sacrificed his career by coming out with it (as a commendable act of last ditch loyalty to Cameron, I'll add... but all the same, he knew he was lying).
Just a quick word on hard Brexit, I don't see that as anything other than a negotiating position. The opening salvo leaked to us is that the EU want 100 billion euros, and we still have to abide by the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which I'm sure the likes of Barnier know is ludicrous. So our side leak something to the effect of 'bollocks to that, we're off if that is all there is on offer'.
A compromise somewhere in between those two positions is what we sell settle at. Hopefully.
There will be electoral damage arising from the election result itself, and any ensuing chaos.
Any deal with the DUP carries no electoral upside for the Tories.
The inevitable steer towards softer Brexit might breathe some life back into UKIP and lose the Tories votes from their loonier fringe.
And the narrative is now running against the Conservatives, whose reputation is trashed. Who now is speaking about Conservative government lasting through the next decade?
Are you sure?
2017 5/4
2018 3/1
2019 9/1
2020 10/1
2021 5/2
And as rcs1000 pointed out, Corbyn is not inclined to dig the Conservatives out of the hole they find themselves in right now. He would rather fight another general election then provide Parliamentary support for EEA/EFTA membership.
"the economy is heading for the rocks in a way that few have yet registered. Whereas in 2016 the economy defied the Brexit referendum to grow at the fastest pace in the G7, in the first quarter of this year it was the slowest. Unemployment is at its lowest in decades, but with inflation at a three-year high and rising, real wages are falling. Tax revenues and growth will suffer as inward investment falls and net migration of skilled Europeans tails off. Voters are blissfully unaware of the coming crunch. Just when they have signalled at the ballot box that they have had enough of austerity, they are about to face even harder times."
To understand the sensational outcome of the British election, one must ask a basic question. What happens when phony populism collides with the real thing?
What do you Brits actually want? And the answer is that the Brits want what they can’t possibly have. They want everything to change and everything to go as before. They want an end to immigration—except for all the immigrants they need to run their economy and health service. They want it to be 1900, when Britain was a superpower and didn’t have to make messy compromises with foreigners.
To take power, May had to pretend that she, too, dreams these impossible dreams. And that led her to embrace a phony populism in which the narrow and ambiguous majority who voted for Brexit under false pretences are be reimagined as “the people.”
This is not conservatism—it is pure Rousseau.
May’s appeal to “the people” as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn’s appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with national destiny but for a good school, a functioning National Health Service, and decent public transport. Phony populism came up against a more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the young and the marginalized that they had something to come out and vote for.
In electoral terms, of course, the two forces have pretty much canceled each other out.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/
Wrong on several levels.
50 Ways to leave your Gover (Boris remix)
"There were three problems. Firstly, May demanded her enormous majority so that she could ride out into the Brexit battle without having to worry about mutterings in the ranks behind her. But she has no clue what the battle is supposed to be for. Because May doesn’t actually believe in Brexit, she’s improvising a way forward very roughly sketched out by other people. She’s a terrible actor mouthing a script in which there is no plot and no credible ending that is not an anti-climax. Brexit is a back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the post-imperial make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there’s almost nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country with little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off from its biggest trading partner and most important political alliance."
You still don't get it do you?
Your girl – and her curtain-twitching, meddling wing of the party – has been utterly humiliated.
Your sycophantic greenhorn idolatry ("I can't wait for those exit poll bongs") for a woman who has achieved nothing has been brutally exposed.
A period of humility from you and your europhobic, socially conservative, statist fellow travellers who have wrecked the hard work Cameron and Osborne put in modernising the Tories would be greatly appreciated. As it is, you seem determined to steer your party back into the wilderness.
That's the problem with young fogies like you. They just don't know their history.
http://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2017/06/disgraced-councillor-jailed-sharing-sharing-indecent-images-children/
48% voted for the staus quo, which includes freedom of movement. It would be totally disingenuous to say that the entire 52% voted to end freedom of movement. Some voted to take back sovereignty, some voted for 350m a week to be spent on the NHS, some just voted to stick it up Cameron.
https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/874201625468039169
Brexits can break you know.
The DUP MPs are hard line Brexiteers.
Some of the lost 13 Conservatives will have been Remainers.
Surely this make sBrexit more likely not less likely.
PS Do we know if the 13 lost MPs were in seats where UKIP stood against them, indicating they were pro EU?
As a leaver I would disagree with pretty much all of his views, but that is beside the point.
He is one of the very few politicians that his put country before party, and for that he deserves immense credit.
He's also one of the few politicians it might be fun to have a pint with.
Noun
A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, but with an inbuilt bias towards hubristic behaviour.
May is a robot. A charmless, dull, cold, barren, humourless, repetitive automaton.
Yes there is a stark difference. They are both profoundly flawed in different ways. Corbyn looks more personally appealing. You have no idea how painful that is for me to type. The Tories need to ditch her at the first opportunity. Loyalty to May will kill them electorally.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/874196932545196032
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/874197346871128064
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jul/05/michael-gove-climate-change-geography-curriculum
The DUP won't want hard Brexit and neither will most of the 12 new Scottish Tory MPs