But we need a pragmatist, someone to accurate access the options and make the best one, regardless of what has happened in the past.
I don't agree with it, but can see May's strategy. Highly centralised, highly aggressive negotiation, cutting out Parliament, ignoring other parties (and much of her own). Ramp up the rhetoric early, but ultimately cut a deal. And if the press paint you as Thatcher's heir, standing up for the 52% and for democracy, that's all good.
But first Gina Miller meant she couldn't wholly ignore Parliament. And then her wheeze to circumvent the problem by having a huge personal mandate such that Parliament was irrelevant disastrously failed.
I still struggle with the idea that May can reinvent herself as a collegiate triangulator, doing a deal that gives something to the 52% and something to the 48%. She made her choice, it was the wrong choice, and it all went tits up.
I agree that it needs not just a new strategy but a new person. Feels like we're in a phony stage - the illusion is she's in it for the long haul, but it does feel like playing for time while an alternative is worked through.
Oh Sky announcing a programme about the disaster Sunday night tastelessly titled The Fire Of London. Ugh.
Sky's reporting is making matters much worse and some of their reporters talking as if they are experts would be laughable if it were not so serious
But they are filling a gap, a very large gap, that has been left by the government. Why is there no one on detailing progress on emergency housing or explaing how they intend to react in advance of the inquiry etc etc
Sajid Javid spoke very well on Sky this morning and he is going to meet the residents today as the Minister responsible
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
£14m was spent on this bloc in the last few years. How long do you think it would take for the handful actually paying rent themselves to pay that back? Profit before lives is untrue and dishonest. There is no profit in social housing. There are degrees of subsidy.
What is clearly true is that that money was not well spent and corners were cut.
The building was managed by a tenants association quango.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
£14m was spent on this bloc in the last few years. How long do you think it would take for the handful actually paying rent themselves to pay that back? Profit before lives is untrue and dishonest. There is no profit in social housing. There are degrees of subsidy.
What is clearly true is that that money was not well spent and corners were cut.
Corners being cut and slightly cheaper cladding etc will be seen as profit before lives is my point, not the actualité of the financial situation. Such an event will not provoke rational analysis, which us wholly unsurprising given the human cost.
I've decided to get out of town this evening and am heading for the coast for a break with my family. The febrile atmosphere here and forecast high temperatures over the weekend don't bode well. That said, I could be worrying about nothing!
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Would the public not be quite critical of such game-playing from the Conservatives?
If you put Corbyn in office, but then block him from enacting the policies in his manifesto and stop him from calling an election to secure a mandate from the electorate, you would look like a cat toying with a mouse.
Oh Sky announcing a programme about the disaster Sunday night tastelessly titled The Fire Of London. Ugh.
Sky's reporting is making matters much worse and some of their reporters talking as if they are experts would be laughable if it were not so serious
But they are filling a gap, a very large gap, that has been left by the government. Why is there no one on detailing progress on emergency housing or explaing how they intend to react in advance of the inquiry etc etc
Sajid Javid spoke very well on Sky this morning and he is going to meet the residents today as the Minister responsible
Something must have happened between then & his interview on R4, 'cos Javid was awful there (though Humphreys did give the impression of someone who had whipped up a massive amount of outrage about a subject he didn't give a toss about last week). He does get points for at least having the balls to turn up and respond though.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's not for party political purposes. It's for factional purposes. However, I think McDonnell is a lot more extreme than Corbyn - he is much more doctrinaire and Marxist, and does not share Corbyn's interests in things like environmentalism and the arts. I suspect Labour can come to a coherent position if Corbyn does rein McDonnell in, but whether he wants to or not is another matter entirely. That said, I do not see how either of them can whip Labour MPs into supporting a hard Brexit when the MPs are much more representative of CLP, member and union views than the leadership is.
The narrative has changed against the government. There is little they can do. They can change leader, give freebies etc etc but Corbyn is looking more like a leader everyday as much as it pains me to say it.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Where are the numbers for Labour's coalition? They wouldn't last long as a minority government.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
£14m was spent on this bloc in the last few years. How long do you think it would take for the handful actually paying rent themselves to pay that back? Profit before lives is untrue and dishonest. There is no profit in social housing. There are degrees of subsidy.
What is clearly true is that that money was not well spent and corners were cut.
The building was managed by a tenants association quango.
Capitalism tho because - errr Tories.
I can't help thinking that if this building had had private landlords we might have had a lynching by now.
I went to a pub quiz in London yesterday evening. A novelty aspect to it was that you had to draw a picture of 'something that makes you happy' which was judged at the end for additional points. The winner was a picture of a naked Theresa strung up with barbed wire. Admittedly it was well drawn but unspeakably dark. I've never know a PM - not even Major after Black Wednesday or Blair after Iraq - held in such withering contempt. Why?
But we need a pragmatist, someone to accurate access the options and make the best one, regardless of what has happened in the past.
I don't agree with it, but can see May's strategy. Highly centralised, highly aggressive negotiation, cutting out Parliament, ignoring other parties (and much of her own). Ramp up the rhetoric early, but ultimately cut a deal. And if the press paint you as Thatcher's heir, standing up for the 52% and for democracy, that's all good.
But first Gina Miller meant she couldn't wholly ignore Parliament. And then her wheeze to circumvent the problem by having a huge personal mandate such that Parliament was irrelevant disastrously failed.
I still struggle with the idea that May can reinvent herself as a collegiate triangulator, doing a deal that gives something to the 52% and something to the 48%. She made her choice, it was the wrong choice, and it all went tits up.
I agree that it needs not just a new strategy but a new person. Feels like we're in a phony stage - the illusion is she's in it for the long haul, but it does feel like playing for time while an alternative is worked through.
Theresa May has never had a strategy* on Brexit. Just a big hole where one should be.
* Unless aggressive prevarication until something hopefully turns up counts as a strategy.
You run through the full list of Tory MPs and you realise just how shallow the talent pool is.
I think Tracey Crouch, Johnny Mercer, Kwasi Kwarteng all have potential.. but they are very far off being PM, which requires an exceptional mix of skills.
I wonder if Damian Hinds could be a possible Chancellor. Kit Malthouse, Nadhim Zahawi and Stephen Barclay also have decent financial/ economic experience.
I would like to see Esther McVey face up against McDonnell in the Commons too, given he called he the stain of inhumanity, argued for lynching her and refused to apologise.
Oh Sky announcing a programme about the disaster Sunday night tastelessly titled The Fire Of London. Ugh.
Sky's reporting is making matters much worse and some of their reporters talking as if they are experts would be laughable if it were not so serious
But they are filling a gap, a very large gap, that has been left by the government. Why is there no one on detailing progress on emergency housing or explaing how they intend to react in advance of the inquiry etc etc
Sajid Javid spoke very well on Sky this morning and he is going to meet the residents today as the Minister responsible
Something must have happened between then & his interview on R4, 'cos Javid was awful there (though Humphreys did give the impression that he'd whipped up a massive amount of outrage about a subject he didn't give a toss about last week). He does get points for at least having the balls to turn up and respond though.
He was awful but so was Humphrys. What do interviewers expect politicians to do about a fire within three days of it happening? Javid didn't start the fire though you wouldn't know it.
Javid isn't up to it but in this instance the media are being too aggressive and whipping the public into a frenzy. A bit like 'hunt the paedos' all over again.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's is.
The MPs will do what they're told.
McDonnell is smarter, more aggressive and more dangerous.
Corbyn is simply a dogmatic ideological socialist, and not very bright.
Both are very experienced campaigners.
The MPs will only do as they are told if they get pressure from members, CLPs and the unions - none of which want the kind of Brexit McDonnell is talking about. McDonnell and Corbyn are fellow travellers, but pack different things in their suitcases; though I do agree that McDonnell is far brighter than his leader.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
£14m was spent on this bloc in the last few years. How long do you think it would take for the handful actually paying rent themselves to pay that back? Profit before lives is untrue and dishonest. There is no profit in social housing. There are degrees of subsidy.
I don't think it's a good idea to quibble about the distinction between decreasing expenditure and increasing income - if it's true that flammable material was used to save £5k.
Oh Sky announcing a programme about the disaster Sunday night tastelessly titled The Fire Of London. Ugh.
Sky's reporting is making matters much worse and some of their reporters talking as if they are experts would be laughable if it were not so serious
But they are filling a gap, a very large gap, that has been left by the government. Why is there no one on detailing progress on emergency housing or explaing how they intend to react in advance of the inquiry etc etc
Sajid Javid spoke very well on Sky this morning and he is going to meet the residents today as the Minister responsible
Something must have happened between then & his interview on R4, 'cos Javid was awful there (though Humphreys did give the impression that he'd whipped up a massive amount of outrage about a subject he didn't give a toss about last week). He does get points for at least having the balls to turn up and respond though.
He was awful but so was Humphrys. What do interviewers expect politicians to do about a fire within three days of it happening? Javid didn't start the fire though you wouldn't know it.
Javid isn't up to it but in this instance the media are being too aggressive and whipping the public into a frenzy. A bit like 'hunt the paedos' all over again.
Thats a real problem with current media. Everything must be a 'scandal' and people held accountable, resign, resign! Etc
There's an ugly mood out there generally, some of it justified, some of it not.
I went to a pub quiz in London yesterday evening. A novelty aspect to it was that you had to draw a picture of 'something that makes you happy' which was judged at the end for additional points. The winner was a picture of a naked Theresa strung up with barbed wire. Admittedly it was well drawn but unspeakably dark. I've never know a PM - not even Major after Black Wednesday or Blair after Iraq - held in such withering contempt. Why?
There was far more vitriol directed at Margaret Thatcher. You seem too young to remember her.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It will be utterly criminal if Corbyn/McDonnell refuse to stand up for our national interest purely for party political purposes and gives an alarming indication as to the kind of Chancellor he would be. We have already had two Chancellors who viewed everything through a political lens, we don't need a third.
It's is.
The MPs will do what they're told.
McDonnell is smarter, more aggressive and more dangerous.
Corbyn is simply a dogmatic ideological socialist, and not very bright.
Both are very experienced campaigners.
The MPs will only do as they are told if they get pressure from members, CLPs and the unions - none of which want the kind of Brexit McDonnell is talking about. McDonnell and Corbyn are fellow travellers, but pack different things in their suitcases; though I do agree that McDonnell is far brighter than his leader.
The MPs are Corbyn's new biggest fans. They didn't lift a finger when he was "campaigning" to Remain, nor when he had atrocious ratings in March/April.
Oh Sky announcing a programme about the disaster Sunday night tastelessly titled The Fire Of London. Ugh.
Sky's reporting is making matters much worse and some of their reporters talking as if they are experts would be laughable if it were not so serious
But they are filling a gap, a very large gap, that has been left by the government. Why is there no one on detailing progress on emergency housing or explaing how they intend to react in advance of the inquiry etc etc
Sajid Javid spoke very well on Sky this morning and he is going to meet the residents today as the Minister responsible
Something must have happened between then & his interview on R4, 'cos Javid was awful there (though Humphreys did give the impression that he'd whipped up a massive amount of outrage about a subject he didn't give a toss about last week). He does get points for at least having the balls to turn up and respond though.
He was awful but so was Humphrys. What do interviewers expect politicians to do about a fire within three days of it happening? Javid didn't start the fire though you wouldn't know it.
Javid isn't up to it but in this instance the media are being too aggressive and whipping the public into a frenzy. A bit like 'hunt the paedos' all over again.
They need to deal with the aftermath - see the homeless rehoused, the building is made safe, people have a space to mourn etc. The causes are for investigation that will last for months at least. Apart from that, you want the politicians out the way. I have some sympathy for Theresa May on this.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Would the public not be quite critical of such game-playing from the Conservatives?
If you put Corbyn in office, but then block him from enacting the policies in his manifesto and stop him from calling an election to secure a mandate from the electorate, you would look like a cat toying with a mouse.
I agree that he'd have to have the chance to enact his major policies, particularly the tax-and-spend ones. The Tories would have to abstain, precisely on the grounds that 'Labour needs to be given a chance to prove itself'. Only policies that could only be undone with extreme difficulty, if at all, need be blocked.
Ideally, the move should already have been made, but a breakdown in the DUP deal would serve as excuse. "We have failed to reach a position where we can be confident of the support of a majority in parliament for our programme. As such, we believe it is better to go into opposition than have our policies and legislation voted down piece by piece".
You run through the full list of Tory MPs and you realise just how shallow the talent pool is.
I think Tracey Crouch, Johnny Mercer, Kwasi Kwarteng all have potential.. but they are very far off being PM, which requires an exceptional mix of skills.
I wonder if Damian Hinds could be a possible Chancellor. Kit Malthouse, Nadhim Zahawi and Stephen Barclay also have decent financial/ economic experience.
I would like to see Esther McVey face up against McDonnell in the Commons too, given he called he the stain of inhumanity, argued for lynching her and refused to apologise.
Cameron not reshuffling the cabinet he first thought of means there was no real development of talent -- and that is betting without his preference for "people like us". It was a double-whammy: no new stars could shine, and the cabinet was stuffed with dead wood. You no longer hear so many pb Tories saying Theresa May's six years at the Home Office proves anything at all.
Labour has a similar problem due not to Corbyn but to the refusal of talented MPs to work with him.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
£14m was spent on this bloc in the last few years. How long do you think it would take for the handful actually paying rent themselves to pay that back? Profit before lives is untrue and dishonest. There is no profit in social housing. There are degrees of subsidy.
What is clearly true is that that money was not well spent and corners were cut.
The building was managed by a tenants association quango.
Capitalism tho because - errr Tories.
I can't help thinking that if this building had had private landlords we might have had a lynching by now.
The top brass of the quango were all on 6 figure salaries.
The narrative has changed against the government. There is little they can do. They can change leader, give freebies etc etc but Corbyn is looking more like a leader everyday as much as it pains me to say it.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Where are the numbers for Labour's coalition? They wouldn't last long as a minority government.
They're not there. But Corbyn is willing to give it a go because Corbyn can't count (or doesn't understand the relevance of being able to count.
They can last precisely as long as the Tory leader wants them to last. And in the meantime, the Tories can get on with choosing a new leader.
I went to a pub quiz in London yesterday evening. A novelty aspect to it was that you had to draw a picture of 'something that makes you happy' which was judged at the end for additional points. The winner was a picture of a naked Theresa strung up with barbed wire. Admittedly it was well drawn but unspeakably dark. I've never know a PM - not even Major after Black Wednesday or Blair after Iraq - held in such withering contempt. Why?
"Brexit means Brexit" and the offensive way she's been behaving towards our Euro chums.
A certain amount of wishful thinking, but may well turn out to be right.
I still think we'll collectively change our minds once the recession seriously kicks in.
We're currently in the strange situation where most people think Brexit was a mistake but most people think we should get on and do it.
I'm part of both of those "most people" groups.
There's nothing like a consensus to change course. If public opinion moves sharply against (and it might yet), a second referendum might become appropriate. But right now there's no case for anything other than implementing the referendum result.
Are the LD MPs preparing to prop up May's coalition of chaos?
No
The Tories need to put country before party, and prop Prime Minister Norman Lamb up.
Fair enough. After shitting the bed so copiously and thoroughly, they can't complain if others are unwilling to climb in with them. Climbing into bed with someone else (as long as they shower first!) would work. They'll have to agree to put through the Lib Dem financial plans (the ones that the IFS found would work and were transparent, far more so than the other ones, and that Oxford Economics projected would get the most growth), change away from the Single Member constituencies of Lord Salisbury's stitch up, and agree to a Soft Brexit, with the deal to be agreed by a final referendum, of course, but I'm sure that's preferable to a 5-year stretch with the DUP or putting Corbyn and McDonnell in Downing Street.
I went to a pub quiz in London yesterday evening. A novelty aspect to it was that you had to draw a picture of 'something that makes you happy' which was judged at the end for additional points. The winner was a picture of a naked Theresa strung up with barbed wire. Admittedly it was well drawn but unspeakably dark. I've never know a PM - not even Major after Black Wednesday or Blair after Iraq - held in such withering contempt. Why?
Not very civilised, is it. She's a 60 year-old woman.
A certain amount of wishful thinking, but may well turn out to be right.
I still think we'll collectively change our minds once the recession seriously kicks in.
We're currently in the strange situation where most people think Brexit was a mistake but most people think we should get on and do it.
I'm part of both of those "most people" groups.
There's nothing like a consensus to change course. If public opinion moves sharply against (and it might yet), a second referendum might become appropriate. But right now there's no case for anything other than implementing the referendum result.
Now is not the time to revisit the decision but it's becoming clearer by the day that that time will come.
I went to a pub quiz in London yesterday evening. A novelty aspect to it was that you had to draw a picture of 'something that makes you happy' which was judged at the end for additional points. The winner was a picture of a naked Theresa strung up with barbed wire. Admittedly it was well drawn but unspeakably dark. I've never know a PM - not even Major after Black Wednesday or Blair after Iraq - held in such withering contempt. Why?
I went to a pub quiz in London yesterday evening. A novelty aspect to it was that you had to draw a picture of 'something that makes you happy' which was judged at the end for additional points. The winner was a picture of a naked Theresa strung up with barbed wire. Admittedly it was well drawn but unspeakably dark. I've never know a PM - not even Major after Black Wednesday or Blair after Iraq - held in such withering contempt. Why?
I wonder what the reaction would have been if it had been Diane Abbott instead of Theresa May.
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.
Alternative Tories.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.
A bit late to worry about that.
If I first.
McDonnell is starting to concern me more than ever, he needs to be reined in. The trouble is, I think he is just saying what Corbyn is really thinking.
If McDonnell allows us the teeter towards a Hard Brexit, I'm seriously thinking that I may well end up voting LD again at the locals next year.
It third.
It's is.
The MPs will do what they're told.
McDonnell is smarter, more aggressive and more dangerous.
Corbyn is simply a dogmatic ideological socialist, and not very bright.
Both are very experienced campaigners.
The MPs will only do as they are told if they get pressure from members, CLPs and the unions - none of which want the kind of Brexit McDonnell is talking about. McDonnell and Corbyn are fellow travellers, but pack different things in their suitcases; though I do agree that McDonnell is far brighter than his leader.
The MPs are Corbyn's new biggest fans. They didn't lift a finger when he was "campaigning" to Remain, nor when he had atrocious ratings in March/April.
They will grumble at times, but do nothing.
They'll vote against a Hard Brexit with the support of the unions, their CLPs and members. But so will McDonnell and Corbyn if it is a Hard Brexit proposed by the Tories. Labour just needs to find a form of words at this stage. That changes if there is a new GE, of course.
Are the LD MPs preparing to prop up May's coalition of chaos?
No
The Tories need to put country before party, and prop Prime Minister Norman Lamb up.
Fair enough. After shitting the bed so copiously and thoroughly, they can't complain if others are unwilling to climb in with them. Climbing into bed with someone else (as long as they shower first!) would work. They'll have to agree to put through the Lib Dem financial plans (the ones that the IFS found would work and were transparent, far more so than the other ones, and that Oxford Economics projected would get the most growth), change away from the Single Member constituencies of Lord Salisbury's stitch up, and agree to a Soft Brexit, with the deal to be agreed by a final referendum, of course, but I'm sure that's preferable to a 5-year stretch with the DUP or putting Corbyn and McDonnell in Downing Street.
A certain amount of wishful thinking, but may well turn out to be right.
I still think we'll collectively change our minds once the recession seriously kicks in.
We're currently in the strange situation where most people think Brexit was a mistake but most people think we should get on and do it.
I'm part of both of those "most people" groups.
There's nothing like a consensus to change course. If public opinion moves sharply against (and it might yet), a second referendum might become appropriate. But right now there's no case for anything other than implementing the referendum result.
The narrative has changed against the government. There is little they can do. They can change leader, give freebies etc etc but Corbyn is looking more like a leader everyday as much as it pains me to say it.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Where are the numbers for Labour's coalition? They wouldn't last long as a minority government.
They're not there. But Corbyn is willing to give it a go because Corbyn can't count (or doesn't understand the relevance of being able to count.
They can last precisely as long as the Tory leader wants them to last. And in the meantime, the Tories can get on with choosing a new leader.
Quite nice in a breathtakingly partisan and cynical way.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Would the public not be quite critical of such game-playing from the Conservatives?
If you put Corbyn in office, but then block him from enacting the policies in his manifesto and stop him from calling an election to secure a mandate from the electorate, you would look like a cat toying with a mouse.
I agree that he'd have to have the chance to enact his major policies, particularly the tax-and-spend ones. The Tories would have to abstain, precisely on the grounds that 'Labour needs to be given a chance to prove itself'. Only policies that could only be undone with extreme difficulty, if at all, need be blocked.
Ideally, the move should already have been made, but a breakdown in the DUP deal would serve as excuse. "We have failed to reach a position where we can be confident of the support of a majority in parliament for our programme. As such, we believe it is better to go into opposition than have our policies and legislation voted down piece by piece".
Sorry, I think this would be madness from the Tories. People will think " OK fine if you don't want to be in government we might as well vote for the other lot". Corbyn would go to the country as soon as he got a bounce in the polls, campaign his heart out (and as we saw is a good campaigner when he wants to be), and win enough seats to govern.
A certain amount of wishful thinking, but may well turn out to be right.
I still think we'll collectively change our minds once the recession seriously kicks in.
We're currently in the strange situation where most people think Brexit was a mistake but most people think we should get on and do it.
I'm part of both of those "most people" groups.
There's nothing like a consensus to change course. If public opinion moves sharply against (and it might yet), a second referendum might become appropriate. But right now there's no case for anything other than implementing the referendum result.
It's wrong but we should do it. Why?
Because the country had a lengthy debate on the subject and decided through a democratic vote to do it. The arguments against were very fully aired. I'm not yet ready to abandon democracy.
If it becomes apparent that the public is reconsidering, there's a case for a second referendum. But there simply isn't the evidence for that yet.
Nightmare situation for the met tonight as there is the rally calling for justice for the victims. Potential flash point for the tangible anger seen yesterday but they will want to allow the genuine and understandable anger to show itself in protest. The tentative numbers of missing etc being bandied about show the gravity of the situation the nation is about to face. Profit before lives. It's hard to see how this doesn't end up in mass protest and outbreaks of rage and loathing at the establishment.
£14m was spent on this bloc in the last few years. How long do you think it would take for the handful actually paying rent themselves to pay that back? Profit before lives is untrue and dishonest. There is no profit in social housing. There are degrees of subsidy.
What is clearly true is that that money was not well spent and corners were cut.
Corners being cut and slightly cheaper cladding etc will be seen as profit before lives is my point, not the actualité of the financial situation. Such an event will not provoke rational analysis, which us wholly unsurprising given the human cost.
As that figure shows, high-rise blocks are expensive to construct and maintain. Roughly £120 000 per flat was spent on this refurbishment. Shockingly expensive, especially given that the work clearly wasn't done to high standards.
It's been pointed out for decades, apparently without success that in a large city like London, development of the 4-storey terraced house type, or 4-storey flats, provides as many homes per hectare as high-rise can do. It costs less per dwelling.
Why don't we do that? Very few people die in fires in 4-storey houses in single occupation and they don't need sprinklers.
Ego-driven architects and developers - and London mayors - like the glamour of gleaming, shiny towers in the sky. 'My tower's bigger than your tower' ... 'my tower won an architectural award'.
I went to a pub quiz in London yesterday evening. A novelty aspect to it was that you had to draw a picture of 'something that makes you happy' which was judged at the end for additional points. The winner was a picture of a naked Theresa strung up with barbed wire. Admittedly it was well drawn but unspeakably dark. I've never know a PM - not even Major after Black Wednesday or Blair after Iraq - held in such withering contempt. Why?
Didn't you try to say that was a pathetic thing to do ?
I was reading up on Anthony Eden and was struck with some parallels between him and Theresa May. Both antisocial. Both anxious to have the appearance of being tough. Both seen as cautious safe pairs of hands who became impulsive and took reckless gambles with disastrous consequences.
And, of course, they were the two worst British Prime Ministers since the Second World War.
'In 2013 the government wrote to every local authority to encourage them to retrofit sprinkler systems in older tower blocks. It did so at the request of a coroner who leads an inquest into a fire in Camberwell in which six people died.
Before passing judgement on whether the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management therefore acted irresponsibly, bear in mind that, according to the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, only 100 older tower blocks in Britain have been retrofitted with sprinklers since 2013. Around 4,000 have not.
The vast majority of councils would appear to have been put off by the cost.'
So 4,000 tower blocks could need looking at. If you fund a refurb on these blocks, say costing £10m each (as the Grenfell one did), that's £40bn needed.
I don't know what voltage you need, but step up/down electronics are quite simple. The more difficult technical problem would be getting the charging (in money terms) secure and correct.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Would the public not be quite critical of such game-playing from the Conservatives?
If you put Corbyn in office, but then block him from enacting the policies in his manifesto and stop him from calling an election to secure a mandate from the electorate, you would look like a cat toying with a mouse.
I agree that he'd have to have the chance to enact his major policies, particularly the tax-and-spend ones. The Tories would have to abstain, precisely on the grounds that 'Labour needs to be given a chance to prove itself'. Only policies that could only be undone with extreme difficulty, if at all, need be blocked.
Ideally, the move should already have been made, but a breakdown in the DUP deal would serve as excuse. "We have failed to reach a position where we can be confident of the support of a majority in parliament for our programme. As such, we believe it is better to go into opposition than have our policies and legislation voted down piece by piece".
This would be a much bigger gamble than the one to call an election with 15+ leads in the opinion polls. Would the Tory party have the nerve for such a gamble? More importantly, would the country? It would feel like a betrayal in my opinion and would merely galvanise further support behind Corbyn.
So 4,000 tower blocks could need looking at. If you fund a refurb on these blocks, say costing £10m each (as the Grenfell one did), that's £40bn needed.
But but unlimited immigration pays for itself through taxes..
So 4,000 tower blocks could need looking at. If you fund a refurb on these blocks, say costing £10m each (as the Grenfell one did), that's £40bn needed.
But but unlimited immigration pays for itself through taxes..
I was reading up on Anthony Eden and was struck with some parallels between him and Theresa May. Both antisocial. Both anxious to have the appearance of being tough. Both seen as cautious safe pairs of hands who became impulsive and took reckless gambles with disastrous consequences.
And, of course, they were the two worst British Prime Ministers since the Second World War.
The narrative has changed against the government. There is little they can do. They can change leader, give freebies etc etc but Corbyn is looking more like a leader everyday as much as it pains me to say it.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Where are the numbers for Labour's coalition? They wouldn't last long as a minority government.
They're not there. But Corbyn is willing to give it a go because Corbyn can't count (or doesn't understand the relevance of being able to count.
They can last precisely as long as the Tory leader wants them to last. And in the meantime, the Tories can get on with choosing a new leader.
Quite nice in a breathtakingly partisan and cynical way.
It's not just partisan. I think the May government has run out of steam but will continue, zombie-like, to stumble onwards unless checked - to no-one's great benefit. That deadlock will be broken one way or another and the likelihood is that a Labour majority results at the end of it. Preventing that outcome is in the national interest.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Would the public not be quite critical of such game-playing from the Conservatives?
If you put Corbyn in office, but then block him from enacting the policies in his manifesto and stop him from calling an election to secure a mandate from the electorate, you would look like a cat toying with a mouse.
I agree that he'd have to have the chance to enact his major policies, particularly the tax-and-spend ones. The Tories would have to abstain, precisely on the grounds that 'Labour needs to be given a chance to prove itself'. Only policies that could only be undone with extreme difficulty, if at all, need be blocked.
Ideally, the move should already have been made, but a breakdown in the DUP deal would serve as excuse. "We have failed to reach a position where we can be confident of the support of a majority in parliament for our programme. As such, we believe it is better to go into opposition than have our policies and legislation voted down piece by piece".
Sorry, I think this would be madness from the Tories. People will think " OK fine if you don't want to be in government we might as well vote for the other lot". Corbyn would go to the country as soon as he got a bounce in the polls, campaign his heart out (and as we saw is a good campaigner when he wants to be), and win enough seats to govern.
No he wouldn't, because the Tories could block a dissolution motion. "We just had an election" is a strong argument.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Would the public not be quite critical of such game-playing from the Conservatives?
If you put Corbyn in office, but then block him from enacting the policies in his manifesto and stop him from calling an election to secure a mandate from the electorate, you would look like a cat toying with a mouse.
I agree that he'd have to have the chance to enact his major policies, particularly the tax-and-spend ones. The Tories would have to abstain, precisely on the grounds that 'Labour needs to be given a chance to prove itself'. Only policies that could only be undone with extreme difficulty, if at all, need be blocked.
Ideally, the move should already have been made, but a breakdown in the DUP deal would serve as excuse. "We have failed to reach a position where we can be confident of the support of a majority in parliament for our programme. As such, we believe it is better to go into opposition than have our policies and legislation voted down piece by piece".
This would be a much bigger gamble than the one to call an election with 15+ leads in the opinion polls. Would the Tory party have the nerve for such a gamble? More importantly, would the country? It would feel like a betrayal in my opinion and would merely galvanise further support behind Corbyn.
The other thing to bear in mind is that over the short term many of Corbyn's policies may well be seen to work.
So 4,000 tower blocks could need looking at. If you fund a refurb on these blocks, say costing £10m each (as the Grenfell one did), that's £40bn needed.
But but unlimited immigration pays for itself through taxes..
The narrative has changed against the government. There is little they can do. They can change leader, give freebies etc etc but Corbyn is looking more like a leader everyday as much as it pains me to say it.
We should all prepare ourselves for PM Corbyn mentally now, so the shock is less when/if it happens.
From a purely tactical point of view, that is one very good reason to let Corbyn have a go now. The choice is not Lab or not Lab. The choice is Lab now or Lab later. Lab now - with an unviable coalition in parliament and a Con majority capable of blocking a new election and any legislation that would have permanently damaging effects, and able to bring Lab down at a time of its choosing - is the better option for the country.
Give him a year, let him fail and then go back to the country.
Where are the numbers for Labour's coalition? They wouldn't last long as a minority government.
They're not there. But Corbyn is willing to give it a go because Corbyn can't count (or doesn't understand the relevance of being able to count.
They can last precisely as long as the Tory leader wants them to last. And in the meantime, the Tories can get on with choosing a new leader.
Quite nice in a breathtakingly partisan and cynical way.
It's not just partisan. I think the May government has run out of steam but will continue, zombie-like, to stumble onwards unless checked - to no-one's great benefit. That deadlock will be broken one way or another and the likelihood is that a Labour majority results at the end of it. Preventing that outcome is in the national interest.
So, would the Tories stand by and let Corbyn do whatever he wants to do with Brexit (admittedly we don't rally know what that would be - and whether his MPs would let him)?
A certain amount of wishful thinking, but may well turn out to be right.
I still think we'll collectively change our minds once the recession seriously kicks in.
We're currently in the strange situation where most people think Brexit was a mistake but most people think we should get on and do it.
I'm part of both of those "most people" groups.
There's nothing like a consensus to change course. If public opinion moves sharply against (and it might yet), a second referendum might become appropriate. But right now there's no case for anything other than implementing the referendum result.
Me too. The difficulty I have is justifying even to myself is that the course I recommend, soft Brexit, is purely damage limitation. It's the least bad alternative to the best option that we rejected by ballot. I don't even think EEA membership is going to work for us.
I don't think people are fully in the damage limitation mode yet.
A certain amount of wishful thinking, but may well turn out to be right.
I still think we'll collectively change our minds once the recession seriously kicks in.
A strange thing happened yesterday. i went for lunch with four friends three of us had been out of the country and we were talking about the strange political situation when we moved onto Brexit. The only one of us who had voted Brexit said he'd voted Remain! I didn't know whether it was embarrassment or if he was in denial. But as he is one of the very few people I know who voted Brexit I considered it to be significant. (Naturally good manners preveted me standing up and shouting Liar Liar Pants on Fire!!)
I was reading up on Anthony Eden and was struck with some parallels between him and Theresa May. Both antisocial. Both anxious to have the appearance of being tough. Both seen as cautious safe pairs of hands who became impulsive and took reckless gambles with disastrous consequences.
And, of course, they were the two worst British Prime Ministers since the Second World War.
Comments
But first Gina Miller meant she couldn't wholly ignore Parliament. And then her wheeze to circumvent the problem by having a huge personal mandate such that Parliament was irrelevant disastrously failed.
I still struggle with the idea that May can reinvent herself as a collegiate triangulator, doing a deal that gives something to the 52% and something to the 48%. She made her choice, it was the wrong choice, and it all went tits up.
I agree that it needs not just a new strategy but a new person. Feels like we're in a phony stage - the illusion is she's in it for the long haul, but it does feel like playing for time while an alternative is worked through.
Capitalism tho because - errr Tories.
If you put Corbyn in office, but then block him from enacting the policies in his manifesto and stop him from calling an election to secure a mandate from the electorate, you would look like a cat toying with a mouse.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/875632690342449152
* Unless aggressive prevarication until something hopefully turns up counts as a strategy.
I think Tracey Crouch, Johnny Mercer, Kwasi Kwarteng all have potential.. but they are very far off being PM, which requires an exceptional mix of skills.
I wonder if Damian Hinds could be a possible Chancellor. Kit Malthouse, Nadhim Zahawi and Stephen Barclay also have decent financial/ economic experience.
I would like to see Esther McVey face up against McDonnell in the Commons too, given he called he the stain of inhumanity, argued for lynching her and refused to apologise.
Javid isn't up to it but in this instance the media are being too aggressive and whipping the public into a frenzy. A bit like 'hunt the paedos' all over again.
https://twitter.com/SimonCowell/status/875463034684264448
There's an ugly mood out there generally, some of it justified, some of it not.
They already straws in the wind of this.
They will grumble at times, but do nothing.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.lh8EPNE8gp#.mljnm6n7zy
I still think we'll collectively change our minds once the recession seriously kicks in.
Ideally, the move should already have been made, but a breakdown in the DUP deal would serve as excuse. "We have failed to reach a position where we can be confident of the support of a majority in parliament for our programme. As such, we believe it is better to go into opposition than have our policies and legislation voted down piece by piece".
Labour has a similar problem due not to Corbyn but to the refusal of talented MPs to work with him.
I think Der Spiegel might want to read slightly more broadly than just the FT.....
They can last precisely as long as the Tory leader wants them to last. And in the meantime, the Tories can get on with choosing a new leader.
There's nothing like a consensus to change course. If public opinion moves sharply against (and it might yet), a second referendum might become appropriate. But right now there's no case for anything other than implementing the referendum result.
That what you mean?
After shitting the bed so copiously and thoroughly, they can't complain if others are unwilling to climb in with them. Climbing into bed with someone else (as long as they shower first!) would work.
They'll have to agree to put through the Lib Dem financial plans (the ones that the IFS found would work and were transparent, far more so than the other ones, and that Oxford Economics projected would get the most growth), change away from the Single Member constituencies of Lord Salisbury's stitch up, and agree to a Soft Brexit, with the deal to be agreed by a final referendum, of course, but I'm sure that's preferable to a 5-year stretch with the DUP or putting Corbyn and McDonnell in Downing Street.
http://www.dw.com/en/20-years-after-lübeck-refugee-hostels-are-burning-again/a-18988014
Why?
This is a really good idea however Ithought you needed high voltage charge points for these vehicles.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-4607870/A-1-000-conversion-turn-lampposts-EV-chargers.html
If it becomes apparent that the public is reconsidering, there's a case for a second referendum. But there simply isn't the evidence for that yet.
It's been pointed out for decades, apparently without success that in a large city like London, development of the 4-storey terraced house type, or 4-storey flats, provides as many homes per hectare as high-rise can do. It costs less per dwelling.
Why don't we do that? Very few people die in fires in 4-storey houses in single occupation and they don't need sprinklers.
Ego-driven architects and developers - and London mayors - like the glamour of gleaming, shiny towers in the sky. 'My tower's bigger than your tower' ... 'my tower won an architectural award'.
Tories need to offer right wing populism whilst keeping moderates on side seemingly as Corbyn has done, or its PM Corbyn soon.
Tax cuts, free social care, ban on immigration from Libya/Syria, etc.
And, of course, they were the two worst British Prime Ministers since the Second World War.
From this report;
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-06-15/grenfell-tower-original-proposed-contractor-was-dropped-to-reduce-cost-of-refurbishment-project/
'In 2013 the government wrote to every local authority to encourage them to retrofit sprinkler systems in older tower blocks. It did so at the request of a coroner who leads an inquest into a fire in Camberwell in which six people died.
Before passing judgement on whether the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management therefore acted irresponsibly, bear in mind that, according to the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, only 100 older tower blocks in Britain have been retrofitted with sprinklers since 2013. Around 4,000 have not.
The vast majority of councils would appear to have been put off by the cost.'
So 4,000 tower blocks could need looking at. If you fund a refurb on these blocks, say costing £10m each (as the Grenfell one did), that's £40bn needed.
What was that about IQs...
Everything is dependent on Phil Hammond.
I don't think people are fully in the damage limitation mode yet.