Always remember that surveys have shown that people tend to have a higher view of their own IQ than is warranted; the same goes for their judgement,
This means they tend to look down on others when perhaps they shouldn't. That's a problem for politicians and political geeks too. Hence the nonsense about I've never kissed a Tory t-shirts, and that the other side is both wrong AND malevolent.
Christianity teaches that we're all pretty useless on our own. This is anathema (!) to those who have a an elevated opinion of themselves. They may be right, there may be no God, but it's not a very scientific view. You can never bank on proving a negative.
In 1900, we believed that all that was needed in physics then was to tweak the decimal places. Now we know that we know a lot less. Relativity, quantum theory, dark matter and energy were found. Dark stuff being 95% of our world - and we have no real idea what it is.
We always know a lot less than we think we do.
Of course we do. But that is no excuse to make up stuff to fill in the gaps. As for Christianity teaching us we are useless on our own, that is because what it wants, in its post Imperial acceptance form, is for us to all blindly follow its teachings.
Present the QS and see whether Parliament votes it down or not... My guess is the DUP will support it anyway because they won't want another election this Summer!
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.
How true is any of what? I merely wondered what percentage of Jewish voters it takes to make a constituency unwinnable for Labour.
Your anecdote is just an anecdote. I have others. We have it from Labour MPs and other party officials that Labour tolerates anti-Semitism. When Emma Barnett twitted Corbyn on the radio, it took minutes for his supporters to point out that she is a Jew. In my previous post above I provided a few verbatim Livingstone quotes.
Which other party's supporters do this? About which other ethnicity would this be tolerated?
You beg the question; or rather two separate questions. Why should any percentage of any religion make a seat unwinnable for any party?
If a party is anti-Semitic then if there are more than x% of Jewish voters in any given seat that seat become unwinnable for that party.
Such is the hypothesis. The evidence from Finchley, Hendon and Barnet supports it in London. Undermining it we have only anecdote.
And including Mrs Thatcher's old seat does not give you pause that perhaps religion is not the primary factor you suppose? And if you look at my anecdote, it clearly says that Livingstone did give major offence -- but ironically by making the same claim that seems to underlie your question. Here's my hypothesis -- the average house price in a constituency is a better guide than its religious makeup.
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
You are wrong on both of your points
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
Survation had voters opposing another general election this autumn by 49% to 40% and Survation were closest to the final election result
Old poll. Much chaos and backroom bargaining with a bunch of regionalist bigots has ensued since then.
Call it.
You seem much exercised with the supposed bigotry of others. You support a party which has much answer concerning anti-semitic bigotry.
Moats and beams.
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.
There is no Jewish bloc vote. As a social group, I should say they are more difficult to pin down in their voting habits than most.
Correct. It's a good proxy measure of integration, actually, which is why it's so interesting that seats with small Conservative majorities but a higher than average number of Jewish voters in them did not fall to Corbyn's Labour party.
All true, but don't forget that it works equally the other way, and the EU exports more food to us than we do to them. No deal is a bad deal for them as well as for us. That's no guarantee that it will all be sorted out, of course - unfortunately the great British public have just made it incomparably harder to get a deal.
How long before the clamour to hold a 2nd referendum grows?
Only matters if labour offer it, which they're not. Until then it's just mumour.
Surely the lessons of the last year or so show there are no certainties any more and that historical precedents give precious few clues either. The only certainty I can see looking at the UK from afar is that the country's mess is only exceeded by the lamentable quality of its politicians.
Yep, dreadful. While these twerps squabble and pontificate 99% of us get on with our lives.
Its why there won't be an election in years, its one big yawn to the electorate.
Turnout was up nationally.
... and apparently another election in the Autumn would be popular.
Britain Elects @britainelects Jun 13 On another general election this autumn:
Survation had voters opposing another general election this autumn by 49% to 40% and Survation were closest to the final election result
Old poll. Much chaos and backroom bargaining with a bunch of regionalist bigots has ensued since then.
Call it.
No that poll was taken after the election result and it showed voters were just as opposed to a Labour SNP deal as a Tory DUP deal
Assuming the QS i passed, what would be the reason advanced for an October election?
Labour want one the Tories don't and as the Tories have more seats there won't be one
True. There is no defensible case for an October election.
The Tories have a negligible majority, they have a leader which most of the PCP/Party members and supporters despise, the House of Lords does not have a Tory Majority - everything sent to it will be sent back - And whatever you may think about him, Corbyn has been in the house for 30 odd years and is well aware of all the techniques to screw a Government party. All he was able to do previously was protest, now that he has his hands on the levers....And the Men in Grey Suits are aware of all this!
The danger is that he could throw away his advantage. Marginalising the moderates and John McDonnell leading a march of the left to overthrow the Tories and their terrorists on 1st July is a good way to start
Unless you are really claiming we will only import food into the UK through Rosyth
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
We would be pushing up our own food costs if we imposed the checks at our end. The opposite would not apply as it would just create greater demand within the EU for produce from EU member states.
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.
How true is any of what? I merely wondered what percentage of Jewish voters it takes to make a constituency unwinnable for Labour.
Your anecdote is just an anecdote. I have others. We have it from Labour MPs and other party officials that Labour tolerates anti-Semitism. When Emma Barnett twitted Corbyn on the radio, it took minutes for his supporters to point out that she is a Jew. In my previous post above I provided a few verbatim Livingstone quotes.
Which other party's supporters do this? About which other ethnicity would this be tolerated?
You beg the question; or rather two separate questions. Why should any percentage of any religion make a seat unwinnable for any party?
If a party is anti-Semitic then if there are more than x% of Jewish voters in any given seat that seat become unwinnable for that party.
Such is the hypothesis. The evidence from Finchley, Hendon and Barnet supports it in London. Undermining it we have only anecdote.
And including Mrs Thatcher's old seat does not give you pause that perhaps religion is not the primary factor you suppose? And if you look at my anecdote, it clearly says that Livingstone did give major offence -- but ironically by making the same claim that seems to underlie your question. Here's my hypothesis -- the average house price in a constituency is a better guide than its religious makeup.
What has Mrs Thatcher's old seat to do with it?
What relationship between house price and political affiliation do you propose? I am suggesting that if a seat has more than X% of Jewish voters in it an anti-Semitic party will not win it.
Present the QS and see whether Parliament votes it down or not... My guess is the DUP will support it anyway because they won't want another election this Summer!
Indeed. So much lefty drivel is being issued over this awful fire, they could probably have put it out with the drool.
It was the cladding which made the tower a death trap. Not cuts in fire prevention, not Tories shoving poor people in vertical jails, not the ghost of Thatcher sending lightning bolts. It was the cladding, which is used across the world and recently caused a very similar fire in Australia, that well known Fascist hellhole
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I had this debate, inconclusively, with Rochdale Pioneers a few weeks ago. He like you was adamant that the answer to some unforgivable social evil was to vote Labour. But the example he chose - people dying in filthy hospitals - was one that began and became commonplace under Labour at a time when money was being firehosed at hospitals.
Likewise you would like, it appears, to seize on this fire as evidence of the deep injustice of society. But the block has just had millions spent on it and the people who lived there are covered by the same regulations as those that govern all such buildings, including those built in Docklands or Paddington Basin and sold to private buyers. Do you think those developers build them any better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
Indeed. So much lefty drivel is being issued over this awful fire, they could probably have put it out with the drool.
It was the cladding which made the tower a death trap. Not cuts in fire prevention, not Tories shoving poor people in vertical jails, not the ghost of Thatcher sending lightning bolts. It was the cladding, which is used across the world and recently caused a very similar fire in Australia, that well known Fascist hellhole
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
Our EU friends can't have it both ways. Either they want to continue with disruption-free trade in the agricultural sector or they don't. The article lists some difficulties they could make. Those difficulties are not mandated by heavenly intervention, they are 100% the invention of the EU. It is entirely up to them whether they do a deal which means the trade isn't disrupted; the UK has made it clear that we don't want it to be. If they play silly buggers, yes, it will be damaging to us, but we'll just have to buy our tomatoes from Morocco instead of Spain and Italy, and find new export markets for our small agricultural sector.
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
Unless you are really claiming we will only import food into the UK through Rosyth
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
You think that. They don't. That will drive their decision-making. Their objectives are to keep the rest of the EU together, move on and to ensure as much as possible of the inevitable Brexit damage falls on our side, not theirs.
We have two non-car crash possibilities. Minimal change involving a permanent commitment to the EEA and other existing agreements. Or revoking Article 50. Neither is ideal from our point of view and agreement for them is far is from certain within the UK. It's not certain the EU will agree either.
Not sure if I'm the only one who fiddles with bets so much, but if you laid Swinson at 1.5 or thereabouts, you could back her now at 1.73. I think I overdid it a little, so backed her a bit to be roughly up the same if she gets the gig or not.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smo
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
"Cramped housing for the working poor". FFS. Listen to yourself you dribbling idiot. This was a perfectly acceptable tower block recently renovated to the tune of ten million. If the council dwellers decided to sell these flats they could probably get £1m for a 3 bedroom apartment, given the location. There are identical private towers nearby.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
Good God a million quid for a potential death trap. London is bonkers.
Our EU friends can't have it both ways. Either they want to continue with disruption-free trade in the agricultural sector or they don't. The article lists some difficulties they could make. Those difficulties are not mandated by heavenly intervention, they are 100% the invention of the EU. It is entirely up to them whether they do a deal which means the trade isn't disrupted; the UK has made it clear that we don't want it to be. If they play silly buggers, yes, it will be damaging to us, but we'll just have to buy our tomatoes from Morocco instead of Spain and Italy, and find new export markets for our small agricultural sector.
Wrong again
What the article is describing is the existing situation for non-EU members.
Our "no deal" would be a disaster, and it's up to us if we walk away.
Prediction: if there is another GE in the summer, the next one WILL be about Brexit. It will have to be.
We might be on the verge of having a National Rethink.
It's only really the Daily Mail comments section and the tattooed inmates of flat roofed workingmen's clubs in the North who are still hard Brexit true believers. The rest of Leave voters are now pretending they've always been in favour of a downy, soft Brexit.
Indeed. I can't be bothered to do it myself, but it would be interesting to look at geographical distribution of Jewish voters to see how many it takes per constituency for the seat to become unwinnable for Labour.
How true is any of this? Ilford North is Labour; Mrs Thatcher's old seat is Conservative. Anecdote alert: I asked some small-c conservative jews about Ken Livingstone earlier this year; they were not bothered about his views on Hitler but had been incandescent when Livingstone wrote off jews as a Tory bloc a couple of years back.
How true is any of what? I merely wondered what percentage of Jewish voters it takes to make a constituency unwinnable for Labour.
Your anecdote is just an anecdote. I have others. We have it from Labour MPs and other party officials that Labour tolerates anti-Semitism. When Emma Barnett twitted Corbyn on the radio, it took minutes for his supporters to point out that she is a Jew. In my previous post above I provided a few verbatim Livingstone quotes.
Which other party's supporters do this? About which other ethnicity would this be tolerated?
You beg the question; or rather two separate questions. Why should any percentage of any religion make a seat unwinnable for any party?
If a party is anti-Semitic then if there are more than x% of Jewish voters in any given seat that seat become unwinnable for that party.
Such is the hypothesis. The evidence from Finchley, Hendon and Barnet supports it in London. Undermining it we have only anecdote.
And including Mrs Thatcher's old seat does not give you pause that perhaps religion is not the primary factor you suppose? And if you look at my anecdote, it clearly says that Livingstone did give major offence -- but ironically by making the same claim that seems to underlie your question. Here's my hypothesis -- the average house price in a constituency is a better guide than its religious makeup.
What has Mrs Thatcher's old seat to do with it?
What relationship between house price and political affiliation do you propose? I am suggesting that if a seat has more than X% of Jewish voters in it an anti-Semitic party will not win it.
You seem to be asking the question to plant the idea that Labour is anti-semitic. Mrs Thatcher's old seat was voting Conservative decades ago, so there is no reason to assume religion is suddenly a factor. Class and wealth are more likely.
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
Our EU friends can't have it both ways. Either they want to continue with disruption-free trade in the agricultural sector or they don't. The article lists some difficulties they could make. Those difficulties are not mandated by heavenly intervention, they are 100% the invention of the EU. It is entirely up to them whether they do a deal which means the trade isn't disrupted; the UK has made it clear that we don't want it to be. If they play silly buggers, yes, it will be damaging to us, but we'll just have to buy our tomatoes from Morocco instead of Spain and Italy, and find new export markets for our small agricultural sector.
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
"The UK has made it clear that we don't want [disrupted trade]." It absolutely is not making that clear. Theresa May explicitly ruled out the Single Market, which is the mechanism by which trade is not interrupted. We can argue in the abstract, but what you are arguing for in terms of real consequences is we drive our car into a brick wall. Do you really want that? We need to get real.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smo
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
"Cramped housing for the working poor". FFS. Listen to yourself you dribbling idiot. This was a perfectly acceptable tower block recently renovated to the tune of ten million. If the council dwellers decided to sell these flats they could probably get £1m for a 3 bedroom apartment, given the location. There are identical private towers nearby.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I had this debate, inconclusively, with Rochdale Pioneers a few weeks ago. He like you was adamant that the answer to some unforgivable social evil was to vote Labour. But the example he chose - people dying in filthy hospitals - was one that began and became commonplace under Labour at a time when money was being firehosed at hospitals.
Likewise you would like, it appears, to seize on this fire as evidence of the deep injustice of society. But the block has just had millions spent on it and the people who lived there are covered by the same regulations as those that govern all such buildings, including those built in Docklands or Paddington Basin and sold to private buyers. Do you think those developers build them any better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
The Scottish National party’s new Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, has indicated thelikelihood of a second independence referendum is receding because there is now a greater chance of stopping a hard Brexit.
With a new Survation poll in the Daily Record showing 60% of Scottish voters opposed a second referendum and only 27% backed one, Blackford was asked on BBC Radio Scotland whether the SNP was “between a rock and a hard place”. It had to placate its core vote by keeping their independence hopes alive while not alienating the wider electorate, who opposed one.
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
Well, I guess I count as a "hard core remainer".
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?
Setting the date of the QS and accelerating election preparations should make it pretty clear to the DUP that time is up for mucking about.
Why can't they just agree 12.5% corporation tax for now? Has no Barnett consequentials and will help rebuild Tory links with business. The fiscal impact in the short term is manageable too.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
You are wrong on both of your points
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing
There is indeed an argument. Just as the UK would no longer be inside the EU's agricultural market, the same would apply to the EU no longer being in the UK agricultural market. We already know that in a number of areas, not least animal welfare, we have significantly stricter legislation than the EU and once we are outside, we would be in a position to make sure those standards are properly enforced. This is nothing to do with politics, simply ensuring our standards are applicable on imports.
Setting the date of the QS and accelerating election preparations should make it pretty clear to the DUP that time is up for mucking about.
Why can't they just agree 12.5% corporation tax for now? Has no Barnett consequentials and will help rebuild Tory links with business. The fiscal impact in the short term is manageable too.
It shows just how easily no deal can happen when one side thinks the other has it over a barrel. It also shows Theresa can and will walk away.
I don't know what it says about negotiating skills on either side.
Mrs C, if we're too embedded in the EU to leave, then how can the UK claim to be independent?
How can we be democratic if a vote of the electorate cannot prevent us being governed, at least in part, by unelected and unaccountable foreign bureaucrats?
Mr. Royale, if that happens, and it's a big if, it's potentially a great blessing in disguise.
Those on the fringes will be grumpy, those in the centre will be relieved. It *could* be a rather good way to go.
[Undecided myself. I do think there's a pretty broad range of acceptable outcomes, but it's important we get an extension, if possible, to negotiations].
What the article is describing is the existing situation for non-EU members.
Quite. If there's no deal, and if our EU friends are so stupid as allow the 'existing situation for non-EU members' to apply to us, there will be massive disruption, which will be damaging to them, as well as to us. It's up to them.
A similar situation applies to the airline industry. With no deal, there's a risk that flights between the EU and UK would be very severely disrupted. That would be very bad news for our airlines ... but hang on, what about the knock-on effect of that on the French, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Spanish, Portugese, and Maltese tourist industries?
In a sane world, both sides will be seeking a deal which minimises disruption. The UK certainly is, or at least was until the election threw an almighty wrecking bar into the machinery.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it won't be a catastrophe. But if it is, it will be a catastrophe for both sides. A worse catastrophe for us than for them, certainly, but I'm not sure that would be much consolation for them.
Unless you are really claiming we will only import food into the UK through Rosyth
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
We would be pushing up our own food costs if we imposed the checks at our end. The opposite would not apply as it would just create greater demand within the EU for produce from EU member states.
Not so. It works the same both ways. And of course we would be free to import from non EU countries on our own terms not those imposed by the EU.
It wasnt being in a minority government situation that trashed the Labour brand in the 70s, but dire economic problems and union militancy in the Winter of Discontent. We should not forget that only three Labour leaders have overthrown a Tory government since 1945, all were seen as very competent, and Jeremy Corbyn is not.
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?
One can always Leave, it's a question of the level of economic disruption you are willing to take for the political gains.
We don't share a currency. We do share a tariff/non-tariff union in goods, to a limited extent in services, a slight one in capital, and a very free one in people, for less than half of our international trade.
Look at the pre-ref EEA/EFTA analysis from PwC, OpenEurope or NIESR - the disruption is minimal.
You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
You are wrong on both of your points
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing
There is indeed an argument. Just as the UK would no longer be inside the EU's agricultural market, the same would apply to the EU no longer being in the UK agricultural market. We already know that in a number of areas, not least animal welfare, we have significantly stricter legislation than the EU and once we are outside, we would be in a position to make sure those standards are properly enforced. This is nothing to do with politics, simply ensuring our standards are applicable on imports.
Enforcing our higher welfare standards is good but will last only until some secretary of state or other signs a free-trade agreement with America which allows their far lower standards. FTAs are not an unwelcome blessing.
I think Lamb would be an ok choice. He's solid, is a reasonable media performer and well liked. However the LibDems need exposure and I think Lamb will get crowded out in the upcoming bun fights.
St. Vince of the Cable is a big hitter, former cabinet minister with gravitas. Difficult to ignore (like him or not). Age is an issue but Jezza, although younger, is hardly in the first flush of youth. The yellow peril need to be noticed - IMO Cable would do that.
Jo Swinson would make an admirable deputy - leader in waiting.
Exactly why I am currently leaning to Cable despite Lamb being my preferred choice. I don't buy the age argument against him. Without offending any of our older posters here, I'm pretty sure that anyone over 60 in politics gets lumped into one 'old' basket. I really don't see much difference in Cable, Corbyn, or May leading their parties.
I think Swinson is very capable and a potential future leader, but I get the impression right now that she is being talked up more due to being a young and female MP, rather than due to any particular achievement.
There is one other interesting factor. Cable is a Privy Counsellor. Farron was never made one and to my knowledge is unique in not having had that status conferred on him as Liberal/LibDem leader. Grimond and Thorpe had that distinction despite having fewer MP's.
I believe that is because the LibDems are not the third largest party in the Commons. That is the SNP, so Angus Robertson is a Privy Counsellor and presumably Ian Blackford, as the new leader of the SNP in the Commons, will also become one.
Clearly not the case as Jeffrey Donaldson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP and Dafydd Ellis-Thomas Dafydd Wigley and Elfyn Llywd of PC are Privy Counsellors
You seem to be asking the question to plant the idea that Labour is anti-semitic. Mrs Thatcher's old seat was voting Conservative decades ago, so there is no reason to assume religion is suddenly a factor. Class and wealth are more likely.
It was Labour until 2010.
But we can explore your hypothesis that it's all about class, wealth, and as you previously suggested, house price.
Brent North, Brent Central, Hampstead and Kilburn, and Hornsey and Wood Green are all Labour and all abut Hendon, Finchley and Chipping Barnet. In what consistent way do your proposed factors of class, wealth and house price better explain the results than does my hypothesis that Jewish voters perceive Labour as anti-Semitic and in these seats are numerous enough to prevent a Labour win?
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smo
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
"Cramped housing for the working poor". FFS. Listen to yourself you dribbling idiot. This was a perfectly acceptable tower block recently renovated to the tune of ten million. If the council dwellers decided to sell these flats they could probably get £1m for a 3 bedroom apartment, given the location. There are identical private towers nearby.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
The link is the obsession with the fraud of "global warming" .
Cheap nasty materials, forged in the far east by burning coal, shipped across the sea by oil burning boats and taken by diesel truck to Londons inner city just to tick a box so a quango landlord can claim a higher energy rating - no doubt to save a few quid.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.
I smell hubris.
How many million votes did the Blue Meanies win, remind me, last week?
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
Yes this isn't one badly run down building that has been neglected for years, it is a newly refurbished building that uses the same materials, and in likely the same way, as many other buildings in the UK and overseas. If there is an inherent problem with the material or construction a huge amount of work will be needed to remedy it worldwide.
I think fire safety needs a rethink even if the cladding is not the problem, as staying in place only works if a fire is contained, as soon as fire starts to spread people need to get out.
Mrs C, if we're too embedded in the EU to leave, then how can the UK claim to be independent?
I am not sure that we can make that claim Mr Dancer, or at least to be totally independent. I think until we reached this point, the cliff-edge of Brexit, that fact was not readily apparent.
How can we be democratic if a vote of the electorate cannot prevent us being governed, at least in part, by unelected and unaccountable foreign bureaucrats?
We had a nasty tendency to gold-plate EU directives. Other countries seemed to be much more laissez-faire, so I suspect we could have been less affected by EU directives than perhaps we were.
One factor that does seem to be occurring is that as the EU matures, the EU Parliament wants more power and the Commission's influence seems to be diminishing. It would be ironic if we left the undemocratic EU just at the inflexion point were democratic institutions are getting the upper hand.
Not sure if I'm the only one who fiddles with bets so much, but if you laid Swinson at 1.5 or thereabouts, you could back her now at 1.73. I think I overdid it a little, so backed her a bit to be roughly up the same if she gets the gig or not.
Oh we fiddle, Morris, we all fiddle!
Not sure I would back her now if I were starting with a blank sheet but if I'd layed at 1.5 I would definitely hedge.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smo
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's live in.
"Cramped nearby.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
I am not blaming the Tories for this fire or for the society we have developed into. I would blame them for not seeing that what we have now is a serious problem. The fire specifically is horrific, but given where it occurred many will see a wider symbolism in it . You don't. That's fine.
Corbyn, of course, won millions of extra votes and secured huge majorities for Labour across London before the fire occurred, but at a time when people were already deciding that something has gone seriously wrong with our society.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.
Under Labour , fire deaths would be kinder and fairer no doubt.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.
Nope - I said I do not think his solutions are sustainable.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not really a party political point. I don't think Corbyn offers any sustainable solutions. But he is saying quite clearly and unequivocally that what we have now is not working for many millions of people. The fire yesterday and where it occurred symbolises that: empty houses bought solely as investments by multi-millionaires alongside cramped housing for the working poor which turns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
He is identifying problems and issues that resonate with many people. No-one else is. That means that his solutions are not being given the attention they should be getting. A lot of voters feel that Corbyn is on their side. I wonder how many feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.
Nope - I said I do not think his solutions are sustainable.
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.
The
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
It's not realns out not to be safe to live in.
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?
He is idy feel that about May and the Tories right now. You and other Tories can dismiss this if you want to; but my guess is if you do you will be handing the keys of Number 10 to the Labour leader.
Solutions? You just said he wasn't offering any.
Nope - I said I do not think his solutions are sustainable.
If we have another election, and Labour have a polling lead, implying a likely Corbyn majority, would you still vote for them, knowing what you know about him and McDonnell and Milne?
Mr. Punter, well, I backed her at 3.5, then got a hedge matched at 1.3, hedged a bit more at 1.5, then backed a little at 1.73
Only, it's only for peanuts, but still nice to be green.
Mrs C, there's no demos in the EU. If you believe that Greeks, Slovenians, Italians and Britons can and should be fellow citizens, then fair enough. Personally, I think culture, history, economic and demographic differences are too substantially to be reasonably bridged.
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?
One can always Leave, it's a question of the level of economic disruption you are willing to take for the political gains.
We don't share a currency. We do share a tariff/non-tariff union in goods, to a limited extent in services, a slight one in capital, and a very free one in people, for less than half of our international trade.
Look at the pre-ref EEA/EFTA analysis from PwC, OpenEurope or NIESR - the disruption is minimal.
I remember when I was going through my decision-making process pre-referendum that I dismissed the analyses based on exitting EEA/EFTA as total scaremongering as it was completely obvious that we'd stay in the EEA/EFTA.
It was the insistence of both sides, as well as the massive importance given to controlling immigration that finally decided me that I couldn't assume that any more and I (reluctantly) cast my vote for Remain.
Looking back, I'm glad I did, as the way my vote would have been taken - as endorsement of leaving EEA/EFTA as well as the EU - would have completely pissed me off.
What the article is describing is the existing situation for non-EU members.
Quite. If there's no deal, and if our EU friends are so stupid as allow the 'existing situation for non-EU members' to apply to us, there will be massive disruption, which will be damaging to them, as well as to us. It's up to them.
A similar situation applies to the airline industry. With no deal, there's a risk that flights between the EU and UK would be very severely disrupted. That would be very bad news for our airlines ... but hang on, what about the knock-on effect of that on the French, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Spanish, Portugese, and Maltese tourist industries?
In a sane world, both sides will be seeking a deal which minimises disruption. The UK certainly is, or at least was until the election threw an almighty wrecking bar into the machinery.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it won't be a catastrophe. But if it is, it will be a catastrophe for both sides. A worse catastrophe for us than for them, certainly, but I'm not sure that would be much consolation for them.
Too many people in the EU want to make an example of the UK for that, I fear.
Comments
Be Pure, Be Vigilant, Behave.
Present the QS and see whether Parliament votes it down or not... My guess is the DUP will support it anyway because they won't want another election this Summer!
Jane MerrickVerified account @janemerrick23
Why did Downing Street let Theresa May visit the fire scene in private rather than in public? Looks bad, shades of Bush after Katrina
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing
Has this ever happened before?
What relationship between house price and political affiliation do you propose? I am suggesting that if a seat has more than X% of Jewish voters in it an anti-Semitic party will not win it.
Still, won't stop the government getting it in the neck.
I'm hoping for a quiet three weeks.
It's probably that she just struggles to read the situation, politically, quickly enough to know what the right move to make is.
Of course, that poses its own problem.
The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
We have two non-car crash possibilities. Minimal change involving a permanent commitment to the EEA and other existing agreements. Or revoking Article 50. Neither is ideal from our point of view and agreement for them is far is from certain within the UK. It's not certain the EU will agree either.
Which will be substantially vague enough for them to win, and allow for BINO
I think there would need to be polls showing a large majority experiencing Bregret before it becomes even on the table as a possibility.
Predictable from John 'I love a good march' McDonnell
All this talk of Tory cuts being to blame, in reality all the major atrocities occured under a Labour mayor.
Now I think making that point is pretty pathetic, but then again I didn't start the mud slinging
She needs to resign.
What the article is describing is the existing situation for non-EU members.
Our "no deal" would be a disaster, and it's up to us if we walk away.
I take it that your house lacks mirrors ....
I typed in Lab - 45% and Con - 36% for the next election, with LDs on about 12%, and I got a Labour majority of 28.
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
Remain, now, would mean chastening, national humiliation and signing up to whole project: no opt-outs, no rebate, EMU.. the whole works.
With a new Survation poll in the Daily Record showing 60% of Scottish voters opposed a second referendum and only 27% backed one, Blackford was asked on BBC Radio Scotland whether the SNP was “between a rock and a hard place”. It had to placate its core vote by keeping their independence hopes alive while not alienating the wider electorate, who opposed one.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/15/theresa-may-northern-ireland-talks-dup-deal-delayed-politics-live?page=with:block-59425fdbe4b0240ef7614af5#block-59425fdbe4b0240ef7614af5
https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/875300870098997248
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?
Why can't they just agree 12.5% corporation tax for now? Has no Barnett consequentials and will help rebuild Tory links with business. The fiscal impact in the short term is manageable too.
I don't know what it says about negotiating skills on either side.
How can we be democratic if a vote of the electorate cannot prevent us being governed, at least in part, by unelected and unaccountable foreign bureaucrats?
Mr. Royale, if that happens, and it's a big if, it's potentially a great blessing in disguise.
Those on the fringes will be grumpy, those in the centre will be relieved. It *could* be a rather good way to go.
[Undecided myself. I do think there's a pretty broad range of acceptable outcomes, but it's important we get an extension, if possible, to negotiations].
A similar situation applies to the airline industry. With no deal, there's a risk that flights between the EU and UK would be very severely disrupted. That would be very bad news for our airlines ... but hang on, what about the knock-on effect of that on the French, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Spanish, Portugese, and Maltese tourist industries?
In a sane world, both sides will be seeking a deal which minimises disruption. The UK certainly is, or at least was until the election threw an almighty wrecking bar into the machinery.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it won't be a catastrophe. But if it is, it will be a catastrophe for both sides. A worse catastrophe for us than for them, certainly, but I'm not sure that would be much consolation for them.
We don't share a currency. We do share a tariff/non-tariff union in goods, to a limited extent in services, a slight one in capital, and a very free one in people, for less than half of our international trade.
Look at the pre-ref EEA/EFTA analysis from PwC, OpenEurope or NIESR - the disruption is minimal.
But we can explore your hypothesis that it's all about class, wealth, and as you previously suggested, house price.
Brent North, Brent Central, Hampstead and Kilburn, and Hornsey and Wood Green are all Labour and all abut Hendon, Finchley and Chipping Barnet. In what consistent way do your proposed factors of class, wealth and house price better explain the results than does my hypothesis that Jewish voters perceive Labour as anti-Semitic and in these seats are numerous enough to prevent a Labour win?
Cheap nasty materials, forged in the far east by burning coal, shipped across the sea by oil burning boats and taken by diesel truck to Londons inner city just to tick a box so a quango landlord can claim a higher energy rating - no doubt to save a few quid.
Madness.
How many million votes did the Blue Meanies win, remind me, last week?
I think fire safety needs a rethink even if the cladding is not the problem, as staying in place only works if a fire is contained, as soon as fire starts to spread people need to get out.
We had a nasty tendency to gold-plate EU directives. Other countries seemed to be much more laissez-faire, so I suspect we could have been less affected by EU directives than perhaps we were.
One factor that does seem to be occurring is that as the EU matures, the EU Parliament wants more power and the Commission's influence seems to be diminishing. It would be ironic if we left the undemocratic EU just at the inflexion point were democratic institutions are getting the upper hand.
Not sure I would back her now if I were starting with a blank sheet but if I'd layed at 1.5 I would definitely hedge.
Corbyn, of course, won millions of extra votes and secured huge majorities for Labour across London before the fire occurred, but at a time when people were already deciding that something has gone seriously wrong with our society.
Really?
Is that all the Europhiles will ever have, insults for their own countrymen with different political viewpoints to their own?
Only, it's only for peanuts, but still nice to be green.
Mrs C, there's no demos in the EU. If you believe that Greeks, Slovenians, Italians and Britons can and should be fellow citizens, then fair enough. Personally, I think culture, history, economic and demographic differences are too substantially to be reasonably bridged.
It was the insistence of both sides, as well as the massive importance given to controlling immigration that finally decided me that I couldn't assume that any more and I (reluctantly) cast my vote for Remain.
Looking back, I'm glad I did, as the way my vote would have been taken - as endorsement of leaving EEA/EFTA as well as the EU - would have completely pissed me off.