The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I voted Remain, but those Remainers who voted Corbyn or abstained have completely fucked our negotiating position, and probably achieved the opposite of what they intended. Not optimal.
The only gold at the end of the hard brexit rainbow will be for the successful lobbyists and most deeply entrenched conservative interests. The young and the poor - those without their finger in the pie - will, once again, be made to pay.
An amazing fact that is nonetheless true. I guess Hallam and Leeds NW are the two closest although they are Labour/LD marginals now
The closest party to an actual liberal party in this election was probably the Scottish Conservatives who managed to hollow out great swathes of Lib Dem bedrock in the Highlands (The Inverness result stands out for me in this result), and the relative poor performance of the Lib Dems outwith ultra remain areas and a few personal votes (Swinson, Lamb) was telling in contrast to Ruth's Scottish Tories.
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
Of course - her position quite rightly changed in response to the referendum. Nothing wrong with that; it was perfectly reasonable to argue before the referendum that leaving the EU would on balance be too risky, and then accept the result of the referendum and move into figuring out the best way to implement it, given that the decision had been taken.
Boris is a slightly different case, though.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
The goal of crushing Corbyn was most definitely in the national interest. Screwing up the campaign was not.
He was not exactly spell-binding. I think it's all pretty simple: a lot of voters did not want the Tories to win, did not expect Labour to win and found the relentless attacks on Corbyn a turn-off. Now that Labour can win, things might change - depending on who the Tories choose to replace May and how Brexit goes.
Yes, you might be right. It might have been the Italian Job election: "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off the majority, not destroy it altogether'"
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
And that is probably a fair conclusion to draw. May was (is) seriously contemplating inflicting lasting damage on the UK and further eroding the living standards of millions of people. She told voters that. Corbyn is not - even if that may be the effects of his policies.
One possible flash point tomorrow will be the noticeable difference in government response to Finsbury as opposed to Kensington. Given that we hear there are still residents of Grenfell sleeping in cars or parks and people are being told they may never know for sure if loved ones perished in the fire it really is hammering home a message of disdain for the underclass as seen by the elite. It seems to be in the low thousands planning to turn out but if that number is swelled by the disenfranchised and disenchanted things could get messy. There's also no official attendance or support from 'outer establishment' radicals so little to keep the lid on things. Messy messy messy. Yet did Grenfell need to be handled so badly? Why is information still so slow in coming? Why have the fire brigade not reported how many remains have been discovered in the tower now they have been through each floor? Why are charities taking the lead when the council should have had this all in hand from hour 1?
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
As the UK government has consistently ruled out being a part of the customs union and single market, they have been left with no alternative.
You'd have to be daft (see Starmer) to want to leave the EU but not be able to open up free trade with the rest of the world by staying in the protectionist customs union.
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
I would disagree. I think Lamb will run and he will win.
His A50 stance, leaves open a soft Brexit policy. I think we saw 2 weeks ago how well a rejectionist Brexit policy went down. Lamb is also stronger on non Brexit policy, and will be more equidistant between the main 2 parties.
Well I hope Lamb can win but I think it will be Davey.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax.
Yes, find a rainbow and dig up the gold.
Your point was a good one: had Labour won, under Corbyn/McDonnell, a lot of the money they'd expect to squeeze out of the populace would have simply disappeared.
I had contingency plans to transfer £10k over to my cousin in Canada (who I trust implicitly) to hold for me in trust, and my parents in an offshore Jersey account.
Would think that offshore Jersey accounts would be the first place labour would look?
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
As I said, this is a negotiation. Trade-offs are for the other side to demand, but implicitly she was offering to pay something towards the EU budget in return for what we were asking for. What do you expect her to say: "We are so desperate that we'll pay through the nose to get it'?
She also very explicitly offered reciprocal rights for citizens, reciprocal rights on trade, and enhanced cooperation on security. She was offering a deal, the outline of which was, as I said, very clear. Of course, we can't force our EU friends to take it if they don't want to, but that's a quite separate point.
What reciprocal rights did May offer? She never actually bothered to tell anyone, did she? The EU does not know, for sure.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
No! But it would all look very different if she hadn't made such a horrendous hash of the campaign.
IMO she was being over-praised before the campaign began, and she's now being over-criticised. She is decent, hard-working, genuinely wants to do what's best for the country, and I think had her Brexit positioning right. She genuinely wants to help the JAMs.
But, there's no getting away from the series of unforced errors, starting with the completely unnecessary arrogance towards Osborne, the muddle over grammar schools, fox-hunting, and the disastrous presentation of what was actually a reasonable policy on social care. She's continued to screw up after the election, with the ham-fisted announcement of a deal with the DUP which had to be retracted, with the failure to take responsibility for the electoral disaster, the failure to miove quickly to change her style, ditch her immediate advisers and become much more collegiate. Her response to the Grenfell tragedy has been tin-eared, although I think criticism of her on this has become an unseemly witch-hunt.
She was a very good Home Secretary, but is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle, and has turned to be an utter disaster, rather than the safe pair of hands we thought we were getting.
I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.
The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.
Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.
Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.
snip
A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.
This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.
When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Precisely. This problem is so solvable it is beyond belief. Face down the Daily Mail over a 10% social care levy on all estates.
What about the money poor asset rich types.A small percentage I know but if faced with death duties of £1mm on a £10mm estate when you only have a few grand liquidity, you'll have to sell the estate to pay it. If this is the family seat then you'll be destroying a legacy.
It's even worse the further up the chain you go. For socialist republicans this is all great, destroy the gentry, but do we really want out grand estates demolished?
I 'd be surprised if even 1% of the voting public would be exercised by that particular problem. What world are you living in?
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I can't see Hammond being any better. I think he's as much a game player as May.
Keep May in place (but promote new talent to the Cabinet) and then have a completely fresh start with someone like Kwasi and Raab in time for 2022 is my refereed option now.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
As the UK government has consistently ruled out being a part of the customs union and single market, they have been left with no alternative.
You'd have to be daft (see Starmer) to want to leave the EU but not be able to open up free trade with the rest of the world by staying in the protectionist customs union.
Do you think there were many Leave voters who voted on the basis of "opening up free trade with the rest of the world"?
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
May's pre-negotiation position on the single market was to seek to retain membership but with concessions. Her Lancaster House position was lock in the concessions but to seek to retain the benefits.
The former was a more coherent negotiating position and a clearer statement of intent.
Out of interest - do you feel more or less confident on your bet on Brexit date with Sean T now vs. when you made it?
Overall yes based on the overall political dynamics but a couple of things have gone against me: Article 50 was triggered on time, and IndyRef2 looks less likely in the short term.
A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.
This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.
When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Precisely. This problem is so solvable it is beyond belief. Face down the Daily Mail over a 10% social care levy on all estates.
What about the money poor asset rich types.A small percentage I know but if faced with death duties of £1mm on a £10mm estate when you only have a few grand liquidity, you'll have to sell the estate to pay it. If this is the family seat then you'll be destroying a legacy.
It's even worse the further up the chain you go. For socialist republicans this is all great, destroy the gentry, but do we really want out grand estates demolished?
I 'd be surprised if even 1% of the voting public would be exercised by that particular problem. What world are you living in?
Well, a number of posters on this website seem outraged that HM Queen might have to give a speech tomorrow as a duty for which she receives a fantastically generous allowance, and miss the start of horse racing at Ascot.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
As the UK government has consistently ruled out being a part of the customs union and single market, they have been left with no alternative.
You'd have to be daft (see Starmer) to want to leave the EU but not be able to open up free trade with the rest of the world by staying in the protectionist customs union.
Do you think there were many Leave voters who voted on the basis of "opening up free trade with the rest of the world"?
If it means increased prosperity in 5 , 10 years plus then I'd say a sizeable %.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
No! But it would all look very different if she hadn't made such a horrendous hash of the campaign.
IMO she was being over-praised before the campaign began, and she's now being over-criticised. She is decent, hard-working, genuinely wants to do what's best for the country, and I think had her Brexit positioning right. She genuinely wants to help the JAMs.
But, there's no getting away from the series of unforced errors, starting with the completely unnecessary arrogance towards Osborne, the muddle over grammar schools, fox-hunting, and the disastrous presentation of what was actually a reasonable policy on social care. She's continued to screw up after the election, with the ham-fisted announcement of a deal with the DUP which had to be retracted, with the failure to take responsibility for the electoral disaster, the failure to miove quickly to change her style, ditch her immediate advisers and become much more collegiate. Her response to the Grenfell tragedy has been tin-eared, although I think criticism of her on this has become an unseemly witch-hunt.
She was a very good Home Secretary, but is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle, and has turned to be an utter disaster, rather than the safe pair of hands we thought we were getting.
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
As I said, this is a negotiation. Trade-offs are for the other side to demand, but implicitly she was offering to pay something towards the EU budget in return for what we were asking for. What do you expect her to say: "We are so desperate that we'll pay through the nose to get it'?
She also very explicitly offered reciprocal rights for citizens, reciprocal rights on trade, and enhanced cooperation on security. She was offering a deal, the outline of which was, as I said, very clear. Of course, we can't force our EU friends to take it if they don't want to, but that's a quite separate point.
What reciprocal rights did May offer? She never actually bothered to tell anyone, did she? The EU does not know, for sure.
Yes, I know what it means. I am just wondering what it is that May has offered. We have still to inform anyone of our proposals on the rights of EU citizens in the UK, for example.
The only gold at the end of the hard brexit rainbow will be for the successful lobbyists and most deeply entrenched conservative interests. The young and the poor - those without their finger in the pie - will, once again, be made to pay.
Oh dear, the old 'taxing the nominal value' fallacy.
I fear you're right on the second point though. But that's what they voted for (in the case of the poor) or failed to turn out to vote against (in the case of the young).
Mr. Observer, leaving the EU and being in the customs union would be drunken madness. We'd be better off remaining than that.
There isn't a realistic Brexit scenario where remaining in the EU wouldn't be better. But that ship has sailed. So we need to trade off the disadvantages of each Brexit outcome. As the minimum change option EEA + CU avoids the cliff edge and maintains a degree of continuity after April 2019. It does have other drawbacks however.
"Labour won every age segment up to the 55+ group" This isn't what the table says, but it is true if you consider LAB+LD =Anti-Tory Block
Those 55 and over were able to vote in GE1979. Those in the group 45-59 came of age during the Thatcher years. The conservatives were very unpopular with young voters in the 80s
I don't think it's right just to add the Lib Dem score to Labour's.
The Conservatives carried 45-54 year olds. I've read that 47 is the age at which more people started voting Conservative than labour.
A fairly crucial question is whether or not that age is shifting, and, if so, by how much
I said his before, its about a cohort moves with time not the age today at when people start voting tory. Now we probably dont have established cohorts in political research but we could look back in five year steps and see if and how the switching age of 47 has changed over time.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
No! But it would all look very different if she hadn't made such a horrendous hash of the campaign.
IMO she was being over-praised before the campaign began, and she's now being over-criticised. She is decent, hard-working, genuinely wants to do what's best for the country, and I think had her Brexit positioning right. She genuinely wants to help the JAMs.
But, there's no getting away from the series of unforced errors, starting with the completely unnecessary arrogance towards Osborne, the muddle over grammar schools, fox-hunting, and the disastrous presentation of what was actually a reasonable policy on social care. She's continued to screw up after the election, with the ham-fisted announcement of a deal with the DUP which had to be retracted, with the failure to take responsibility for the electoral disaster, the failure to miove quickly to change her style, ditch her immediate advisers and become much more collegiate. Her response to the Grenfell tragedy has been tin-eared, although I think criticism of her on this has become an unseemly witch-hunt.
She was a very good Home Secretary, but is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle, and has turned to be an utter disaster, rather than the safe pair of hands we thought we were getting.
Hard to disagree with a word of that.
That's very much my take, Richard. If ever there was an example of the Peter Principle....
Further to the unrest and demo thoughts above, I think what the establishment has failed utterly to grasp is that it's hard out here. It's always been hard but since 2008 and the slashing of public budgets it's getting harder. Jobs are unfulfilling and often not full time and do not attract pay rises, bonuses or the rest that used to make it bearable. Life on benefits is not a cake walk for those that play by the rules (I speak from experience, not from a Tuscan villa). It's not the overall budget on the NHS or schools it's the libraries that close and the sure start centres. It's the losses at the margins that the middle classes do not notice but the JAMs most certainly do. It's rough, the rich are not struggling or suffering and there is no end in sight. 2025! It's inconceivable that the electorate could accept another 8 years of austerity/belt tightening. So yes it is tough, yes the wealthy are not struggling like the rest of us and now many dozens, possibly in the hundreds die in a fire that looks like it was exacerbated by prettying up the outside so the wealthy don't choke on their brioche. And of the survivors, some are now sleeping rough and there is chaos in the response. 2 days before the election I gave up any pretense of being prepared to take this crap any longer and shifted to Corbyn. Not because he is some sort of genius or even a pleasant character but because he gets that we can't go on this way. That's the crux of it. Austerity is done, magic money trees are needed, and somebody with the nouse to inflate and grow our way out of the magic whilst providing infrastructure and jobs. I'll take the pipe dream, I'm done with the reality when that reality is made to look like a permanent fixture.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I can't see Hammond being any better. I think he's as much a game player as May.
Keep May in place (but promote new talent to the Cabinet) and then have a completely fresh start with someone like Kwasi and Raab in time for 2022 is my refereed option now.
Hammond will prioritise the economy over immigration. That's a big difference - for me a big positive - but others will see it differently.
A day of rage on what may end up being the hottest day of the year. What could possibly go wrong?
Are Jezza and Johnny Mac still organizing a Day Of Rage?
If anything goes wrong on their heads be it...
McDonnell was on Sky earlier protesting ignorance of such things asking 'who are they?' And then promoting the July 1 March which will be 'peaceful'
I saw this interview and was absolutely enraged that McDonnell was allowed to get away with such a blatant lie. There was no come-back from the interviewer. It just confirms my view that the media are treating Labour with kid gloves at the moment. I've no idea why, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
An amazing fact that is nonetheless true. I guess Hallam and Leeds NW are the two closest although they are Labour/LD marginals now
The closest party to an actual liberal party in this election was probably the Scottish Conservatives who managed to hollow out great swathes of Lib Dem bedrock in the Highlands (The Inverness result stands out for me in this result), and the relative poor performance of the Lib Dems outwith ultra remain areas and a few personal votes (Swinson, Lamb) was telling in contrast to Ruth's Scottish Tories.
I must admit that I had rather overlooked the two Labour gains from the Libdems - both are marginals strictly speaking though I suspect the LibDems may struggle to retain second place next time in Hallam.Looking futher afield , Jo Swinson's seat at Dunbartonshire East could eventually come back into contention for Labour - given that it was Labour-held until 2005. She has clearly benefitted from tactical voting but much of that could unwind if Labour continues to recover strongly in Scotland - particularly if the LibDems were to retoxify themselves at some point by failing to support a Vote of No Confidence in the minority Government. In such a scenario the 'Tories little helpers' label would be reapplied to them! For that reason, I think it highly unlikely they will give the Tories any support at all.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
May's pre-negotiation position on the single market was to seek to retain membership but with concessions. Her Lancaster House position was lock in the concessions but to seek to retain the benefits.
The former was a more coherent negotiating position and a clearer statement of intent.
Out of interest - do you feel more or less confident on your bet on Brexit date with Sean T now vs. when you made it?
Overall yes based on the overall political dynamics but a couple of things have gone against me: Article 50 was triggered on time, and IndyRef2 looks less likely in the short term.
Thanks - yes it's interesting - I'd probably score it the same. At the time I thought you had the worse end of the deal - but now feels close to a coin flip to me.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
No! But it would all look very different if she hadn't made such a horrendous hash of the campaign.
IMO she was being over-praised before the campaign began, and she's now being over-criticised. She is decent, hard-working, genuinely wants to do what's best for the country, and I think had her Brexit positioning right. She genuinely wants to help the JAMs.
But, there's no getting away from the series of unforced errors, starting with the completely unnecessary arrogance towards Osborne, the muddle over grammar schools, fox-hunting, and the disastrous presentation of what was actually a reasonable policy on social care. She's continued to screw up after the election, with the ham-fisted announcement of a deal with the DUP which had to be retracted, with the failure to take responsibility for the electoral disaster, the failure to miove quickly to change her style, ditch her immediate advisers and become much more collegiate. Her response to the Grenfell tragedy has been tin-eared, although I think criticism of her on this has become an unseemly witch-hunt.
She was a very good Home Secretary, but is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle, and has turned to be an utter disaster, rather than the safe pair of hands we thought we were getting.
She has proven to be a poor campaigner in a particular and unusual campaign and she does seem to be slow reacting because she likes considered responses. The latter is both a strength and a weakness. Her buttoned up demeanor is out of kilter but it is possible may become less of aliability with time. Too early to judge as God knows what is going to happen next.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I don't disagree with that, but I don't think you can simply absolve voters from all responsibility for the consequences of their votes. As our PM used to be fond of saying, politics is not a game.
If we end up with no deal and the economy suffers badly then the retribution on those who glibly wished for that outcome will be brutal. I am actually starting to feel real anger at the way things are planning out.
Am I the only one seriously pissed off that the young failed to turn out to stop Brexit in 2016, but managed to turn out in 2017 only to cripple our ability to negotiate it? Great timing, guys!
A day of rage on what may end up being the hottest day of the year. What could possibly go wrong?
Are Jezza and Johnny Mac still organizing a Day Of Rage?
If anything goes wrong on their heads be it...
McDonnell was on Sky earlier protesting ignorance of such things asking 'who are they?' And then promoting the July 1 March which will be 'peaceful'
I saw this interview and was absolutely enraged that McDonnell was allowed to get away with such a blatant lie. There was no come-back from the interviewer. It just confirms my view that the media are treating Labour with kid gloves at the moment. I've no idea why, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
The media smell blood and are soft pedalling the hunters waiting to film the prey. All about the ratings and the story.
I think we all need to be very careful about describing hard Brexit or soft Brexit. If leaving the single market means hard Brexit, then what about leaving its decision making bodies but retaining free access to the market (a la USA, Canada, India, China etc)? If leaving the EU Customs Union is hard, then what about joining a customs union with the EU (a la Turkey) but which thereby also allows us to sign third party trade deals? I think on every issue there is a range of possible outcomes. A deal will be struck on something that enables both sides to claim a good outcome politically.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I'm not convinced that it's a zero sum game. Obviously the EU will want what is best for the EU and the same applies to the UK. The EU will take into account the need to not encourage others to leave, but there will be many things that will be good for both the UK and the EU and it will make sense for both sides to reach an agreement.
Alternatively due to our current weakness they will force us out with no deal in the hope they can profit from our impending misfortune.
Am I the only one seriously pissed off that the young failed to turn out to stop Brexit in 2016, but managed to turn out in 2017 only to cripple our ability to negotiate it? Great timing, guys!
Am I the only one seriously pissed off that the young failed to turn out to stop Brexit in 2016, but managed to turn out in 2017 only to cripple our ability to negotiate it? Great timing, guys!
I think you're misreading the current position. What the young have done is make sure that the government has to pay much more regard to different viewpoints in negotiating Brexit than they otherwise would have done. That can only be a good thing.
The whole thing is going to be a complete disaster anyway, but at least it's now going to be a shared disaster. If it results in the Conservative party being demolished under an avalanche of disdain and ignominy, that would be a very well-deserved incidental benefit also.
Am I the only one seriously pissed off that the young failed to turn out to stop Brexit in 2016, but managed to turn out in 2017 only to cripple our ability to negotiate it? Great timing, guys!
I think the 18-40 cohort has failed to pay proper attention to Richard Nabavi's posts on the matter.
Re LD leadership , I expect it will be Cable . The Swinson fans of which I am one see this as a way to pass the baton on to her in 3 years time or so .
Fair enough - but should councils really be running property empires ?
For a number of authorities, the acquisition and development of an Investment Property portfolio represents an income source not contingent on the largesse or otherwise of central Government.
Councils have been able to borrow significant sums of money at very low rates of interests and indeed they (along with pension funds) were the only ones keeping large parts of the non-domestic housing market going in the depths of recession.
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
IIRC Lamb is pro fox-hunting. That certainly isn't going to help him.
I think we all need to be very careful about describing hard Brexit or soft Brexit. If leaving the single market means hard Brexit, then what about leaving its decision making bodies but retaining free access to the market (a la USA, Canada, India, China etc)? If leaving the EU Customs Union is hard, then what about joining a customs union with the EU (a la Turkey) but which thereby also allows us to sign third party trade deals? I think on every issue there is a range of possible outcomes. A deal will be struck on something that enables both sides to claim a good outcome politically.
both sides will claim a good outcome regardless and have the ready made spin to support such a contention. Joe Public's interpretation will depend upon his/ her batting order.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax.
Yes, find a rainbow and dig up the gold.
Your point was a good one: had Labour won, under Corbyn/McDonnell, a lot of the money they'd expect to squeeze out of the populace would have simply disappeared.
I had contingency plans to transfer £10k over to my cousin in Canada (who I trust implicitly) to hold for me in trust, and my parents in an offshore Jersey account.
Would think that offshore Jersey accounts would be the first place labour would look?
It's not hiding it in the car boot, though. They'd have to legislate to get at it.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I'm not convinced that it's a zero sum game. Obviously the EU will want what is best for the EU and the same applies to the UK. The EU will take into account the need to not encourage others to leave, but there will be many things that will be good for both the UK and the EU and it will make sense for both sides to reach an agreement.
Alternatively due to our current weakness they will force us out with no deal in the hope they can profit from our impending misfortune.
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
Of course - her position quite rightly changed in response to the referendum. Nothing wrong with that; it was perfectly reasonable to argue before the referendum that leaving the EU would on balance be too risky, and then accept the result of the referendum and move into figuring out the best way to implement it, given that the decision had been taken.
Boris is a slightly different case, though.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
A majority of the UK electorate want a close trading relationship and co-operation with our European neighbours, but without being in political union with it.
Political obsessives with massive egos and bigger agendas micro analysing each step of the Brexit process, coming to the same tedious conclusions after each days negotiations that they would have had at the start... how exciting!
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
IIRC Lamb is pro fox-hunting. That certainly isn't going to help him.
He'd vote to keep the law as it is now, though his vote back in 2002? was not to change the law against. It won't be good enough for all members as you imply.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
As the UK government has consistently ruled out being a part of the customs union and single market, they have been left with no alternative.
You'd have to be daft (see Starmer) to want to leave the EU but not be able to open up free trade with the rest of the world by staying in the protectionist customs union.
It would only be madness if the benefits of not being in the customs union outweigh the benefits of being in it. We know where we are as things stand - we have certainty. What certainty can you provide about leaving the customs union, beyond the fact that it is likely to make it harder and more expensive to export to the EU27?
A day of rage on what may end up being the hottest day of the year. What could possibly go wrong?
Are Jezza and Johnny Mac still organizing a Day Of Rage?
If anything goes wrong on their heads be it...
McDonnell was on Sky earlier protesting ignorance of such things asking 'who are they?' And then promoting the July 1 March which will be 'peaceful'
I saw this interview and was absolutely enraged that McDonnell was allowed to get away with such a blatant lie. There was no come-back from the interviewer. It just confirms my view that the media are treating Labour with kid gloves at the moment. I've no idea why, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
The media smell blood and are soft pedalling the hunters waiting to film the prey. All about the ratings and the story.
Spot on. The media exist to sell media. With Murdoch it's profits first. Power and influence second. The two are intertwined, but ratings trump all.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I voted Remain, but those Remainers who voted Corbyn or abstained have completely fucked our negotiating position, and probably achieved the opposite of what they intended. Not optimal.
You can chalk that up to May's bloody-mindedness I'm afraid. She needlessly went all Kipper the moment she became leader.
I abstained for the first time in my life, I'd probably vote Tory if Hammond became leader as he seems one of the few contenders who actually understands the economic perils of Brexit. Otherwise I'd abstain again - the only circumstances in which I would vote Corbyn Labour would be if Boris became Tory leader.
The other noteworthy point is that Conservatives are significantly less popular with younger women than men in the same age group (or Labour is more popular). Amongst men and women over 55 there is a small trend the other way.
I have noticed younger women (30's and 40's) really don't like Theresa May.
Specifically women with school age families don't like grammar schools.
Only in those areas that don't have them. In areas that do have them they are very popular. Indeed in areas bordering those with them they are very popular as well.
Popular in the abstract, maybe. The numbers don't work out when it's your children though. You are happy when your Johnny is amongst the 20%, or whatever the percentage is, that gets to Grammar School. You are not so happy for Susie to be amongst the 80% who gets an education that by definition is second rate. Even thinking about those numbers puts you off, so it affects mothers with primary school children and with children that have recently left school.
Edit. You will also feel more strongly about the issue when your children are involved, rather than a nice to have for the population at large. So grammar schools are a strong negative for a minority of the population and a slight positive for a majority, maybe.
My children are involved. My daughter is currently sitting her GCSEs at Kesteven and Grantham Girls School (Maggies old School) and my son will sit his 11 plus in September. I have no idea if my son will pass as he is very young for his year and has struggled a fair bit with the types of questions they ask. But I am not at all concerned as there are plenty of good alternatives to the Grammar schools in Lincolnshire.
So no, you are utterly wrong. The presence of Grammar schools is in no way a negative for me.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
May's pre-negotiation position on the single market was to seek to retain membership but with concessions. Her Lancaster House position was lock in the concessions but to seek to retain the benefits.
The former was a more coherent negotiating position and a clearer statement of intent.
Out of interest - do you feel more or less confident on your bet on Brexit date with Sean T now vs. when you made it?
Overall yes based on the overall political dynamics but a couple of things have gone against me: Article 50 was triggered on time, and IndyRef2 looks less likely in the short term.
Surely a transitional deal = not leaving?
Shouldn't that be sitting pretty well with you right now?
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
Of course - her position quite rightly changed in response to the referendum. Nothing wrong with that; it was perfectly reasonable to argue before the referendum that leaving the EU would on balance be too risky, and then accept the result of the referendum and move into figuring out the best way to implement it, given that the decision had been taken.
Boris is a slightly different case, though.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
A majority of the UK electorate want a close trading relationship and co-operation with our European neighbours, but without being in political union with it.
That wasn't on offer, so we voted to Leave.
Yes, well voting Leave meant leaving whatever the consequences. Of course Remain meant the same, although since we were already in we did have some idea of the consequences and therefore those of us that voted remain had a fairly specific idea of what we would be getting.
Whatever the result of negotiations, I don't think we can complain. Leaving was of such paramount importance that the consequences didn't matter. We have to live with that, just as we all have to live with any bad decisions we make in life.
Am I the only one seriously pissed off that the young failed to turn out to stop Brexit in 2016, but managed to turn out in 2017 only to cripple our ability to negotiate it? Great timing, guys!
Nope. All vaguely remainy Tories are pissed off at them. It's a double clusterfuck of stupidity.
The voting equivalent of calling with a terrible hand then folding to a raise when you have implied odds to call.
"Labour won every age segment up to the 55+ group" This isn't what the table says, but it is true if you consider LAB+LD =Anti-Tory Block
Those 55 and over were able to vote in GE1979. Those in the group 45-59 came of age during the Thatcher years. The conservatives were very unpopular with young voters in the 80s
I don't think it's right just to add the Lib Dem score to Labour's.
The Conservatives carried 45-54 year olds. I've read that 47 is the age at which more people started voting Conservative than labour.
A fairly crucial question is whether or not that age is shifting, and, if so, by how much
I said his before, its about a cohort moves with time not the age today at when people start voting tory. Now we probably dont have established cohorts in political research but we could look back in five year steps and see if and how the switching age of 47 has changed over time.
Seems to vary quite a lot. A five minute look shows that the 18-24 cohort in 1974 flipped to Conservative by 1979.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
As the UK government has consistently ruled out being a part of the customs union and single market, they have been left with no alternative.
You'd have to be daft (see Starmer) to want to leave the EU but not be able to open up free trade with the rest of the world by staying in the protectionist customs union.
It would only be madness if the benefits of not being in the customs union outweigh the benefits of being in it. We know where we are as things stand - we have certainty. What certainty can you provide about leaving the customs union, beyond the fact that it is likely to make it harder and more expensive to export to the EU27?
I'd say our massive balance of trade deficit is a clear indicator that being shackled to a protectionist cartel isn't a great place to be.
It would only be madness if the benefits of not being in the customs union outweigh the benefits of being in it. We know where we are as things stand - we have certainty. What certainty can you provide about leaving the customs union, beyond the fact that it is likely to make it harder and more expensive to export to the EU27?
Leaving the Single Market but staying in the Customs Union helps no one at all. It is by far the dumbest solution of the lot.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I'm not convinced that it's a zero sum game. Obviously the EU will want what is best for the EU and the same applies to the UK. The EU will take into account the need to not encourage others to leave, but there will be many things that will be good for both the UK and the EU and it will make sense for both sides to reach an agreement.
Alternatively due to our current weakness they will force us out with no deal in the hope they can profit from our impending misfortune.
Tosh
So nobody in the EU is currently eying up our financial services sector
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I voted Remain, but those Remainers who voted Corbyn or abstained have completely fucked our negotiating position, and probably achieved the opposite of what they intended. Not optimal.
You can chalk that up to May's bloody-mindedness I'm afraid. She needlessly went all Kipper the moment she became leader.
I abstained for the first time in my life, I'd probably vote Tory if Hammond became leader as he seems one of the few contenders who actually understands the economic perils of Brexit. Otherwise I'd abstain again - the only circumstances in which I would vote Corbyn Labour would be if Boris became Tory leader.
Yep - Boris or any of the other prominent and mendacious Leave advocates would drive me to Labour now that Warwick & Leamington is a Labour marginal.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
May's pre-negotiation position on the single market was to seek to retain membership but with concessions. Her Lancaster House position was lock in the concessions but to seek to retain the benefits.
The former was a more coherent negotiating position and a clearer statement of intent.
Out of interest - do you feel more or less confident on your bet on Brexit date with Sean T now vs. when you made it?
Overall yes based on the overall political dynamics but a couple of things have gone against me: Article 50 was triggered on time, and IndyRef2 looks less likely in the short term.
Surely a transitional deal = not leaving?
Shouldn't that be sitting pretty well with you right now?
Did anybody hear IDS discussing the differences between 'Transitional' and his favoured word 'Interim'.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax.
Yes, find a rainbow and dig up the gold.
Your point was a good one: had Labour won, under Corbyn/McDonnell, a lot of the money they'd expect to squeeze out of the populace would have simply disappeared.
I had contingency plans to transfer £10k over to my cousin in Canada (who I trust implicitly) to hold for me in trust, and my parents in an offshore Jersey account.
Would think that offshore Jersey accounts would be the first place labour would look?
It's not hiding it in the car boot, though. They'd have to legislate to get at it.
It's offshore and not part of the UK.
I mean I think the whole idea is a bit silly - I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is going to steal money from your bank account or your car boot.
But putting it into an offshore bank account when John McDonnell has said he will go after tax avoidance in crown dependencies seems strange.
It would only be madness if the benefits of not being in the customs union outweigh the benefits of being in it. We know where we are as things stand - we have certainty. What certainty can you provide about leaving the customs union, beyond the fact that it is likely to make it harder and more expensive to export to the EU27?
Leaving the Single Market but staying in the Customs Union helps no one at all. It is by far the dumbest solution of the lot.
It helps a lot of people whose jobs are dependent on the frictionless movement of goods within the EU. Thus, it also helps the taxpayer.
Sky reporting DUP negotiations have not gone as the DUP would expect. Wheels coming off. Election October I think with May gone after the QS creeps through.
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
I can't remember many of your 40,000 posts being all that complimentary toward the LDs. Not sure if you are a member or were - not that it matters very much.
As a member, I would be quite happy with Lamb or Davey leading the party. Norman was not the right person to lead us in 2015 - we needed Tim's energy and passion to get us up off the floor. The world has moved on and we may well be looking at a five-year Parliament.
I had a huge problem with our basic Brexit position which was "let's have a referendum on the Treaty and if we reject it, we stay in the EU" as I didn't believe the rejection of the treaty could possibly lead to that consequence. There could be many reasons for rejecting a bad deal but to argue that meant staying in was foolish in extremis.
People will put up with character and other defects when they think they are working for and with a winner. When that person proves themselves not to be a winner, then those defects tend to be magnified and unignorable.
@Richard_Nabavi said she should change her style. I don't think her style is an artifice; it is how and who she is. How on earth could she change it?
She is clinging on now, weak, and at the mercy of anyone who wants to impose their will upon her. But...I still don't think she should go. It would be too disruptive for the country and for Brexit*.
"Labour won every age segment up to the 55+ group" This isn't what the table says, but it is true if you consider LAB+LD =Anti-Tory Block
Those 55 and over were able to vote in GE1979. Those in the group 45-59 came of age during the Thatcher years. The conservatives were very unpopular with young voters in the 80s
I don't think it's right just to add the Lib Dem score to Labour's.
The Conservatives carried 45-54 year olds. I've read that 47 is the age at which more people started voting Conservative than labour.
A fairly crucial question is whether or not that age is shifting, and, if so, by how much
I said his before, its about a cohort moves with time not the age today at when people start voting tory. Now we probably dont have established cohorts in political research but we could look back in five year steps and see if and how the switching age of 47 has changed over time.
Seems to vary quite a lot. A five minute look shows that the 18-24 cohort in 1974 flipped to Conservative by 1979.
That's because it's a moving target. What is Conservative one year is different five years later, ditto Labour. Also governments become more unpopular and tired over time.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I don't disagree with that, but I don't think you can simply absolve voters from all responsibility for the consequences of their votes. As our PM used to be fond of saying, politics is not a game.
If we end up with no deal and the economy suffers badly then the retribution on those who glibly wished for that outcome will be brutal. I am actually starting to feel real anger at the way things are planning out.
What are you gonna do? Hire a van and drive to Leaverland?
No Portugal or the South of France are my preferred destinations.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I voted Remain, but those Remainers who voted Corbyn or abstained have completely fucked our negotiating position, and probably achieved the opposite of what they intended. Not optimal.
You can chalk that up to May's bloody-mindedness I'm afraid. She needlessly went all Kipper the moment she became leader.
I abstained for the first time in my life, I'd probably vote Tory if Hammond became leader as he seems one of the few contenders who actually understands the economic perils of Brexit. Otherwise I'd abstain again - the only circumstances in which I would vote Corbyn Labour would be if Boris became Tory leader.
Yep - Boris or any of the other prominent and mendacious Leave advocates would drive me to Labour now that Warwick & Leamington is a Labour marginal.
You'd literally vote for a Marxist and a bunch of Trots that you detest, a group of people you know to be actively sinister, malign and mendacious, just coz you're angry about Boris.
You'd fuck the country out of pique. You are ridiculous.
I think Boris is even more sinister, malign and mendacious than Corbyn, and given power would be far harder to constrain. The same applies to Gove. I think the Tory Brexit right is a real threat and would do all I could to prevent it taking power.
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
Of course - her position quite rightly changed in response to the referendum. Nothing wrong with that; it was perfectly reasonable to argue before the referendum that leaving the EU would on balance be too risky, and then accept the result of the referendum and move into figuring out the best way to implement it, given that the decision had been taken.
Boris is a slightly different case, though.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
A majority of the UK electorate want a close trading relationship and co-operation with our European neighbours, but without being in political union with it.
That wasn't on offer, so we voted to Leave.
It's amazing how few people understand this simple fact...
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I can't see Hammond being any better. I think he's as much a game player as May.
Keep May in place (but promote new talent to the Cabinet) and then have a completely fresh start with someone like Kwasi and Raab in time for 2022 is my refereed option now.
Can Theresa May do that? Sure, in principle she can promote Kwasi, Raab and Uncle Tom Cobley and all but where are the vacancies? I'm not sure Theresa May is powerful enough to sack any of the present incumbents to make room for Kwasi and a new team.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I voted Remain, but those Remainers who voted Corbyn or abstained have completely fucked our negotiating position, and probably achieved the opposite of what they intended. Not optimal.
You can chalk that up to May's bloody-mindedness I'm afraid. She needlessly went all Kipper the moment she became leader.
I abstained for the first time in my life, I'd probably vote Tory if Hammond became leader as he seems one of the few contenders who actually understands the economic perils of Brexit. Otherwise I'd abstain again - the only circumstances in which I would vote Corbyn Labour would be if Boris became Tory leader.
Yep - Boris or any of the other prominent and mendacious Leave advocates would drive me to Labour now that Warwick & Leamington is a Labour marginal.
You'd literally vote for a Marxist and a bunch of Trots that you detest, a group of people you know to be actively sinister, malign and mendacious, just coz you're angry about Boris.
You'd fuck the country out of pique. You are ridiculous.
Thing is not everyone sees the world in Daily Mail terms.
Further to the unrest and demo thoughts above, I think what the establishment has failed utterly to grasp is that it's hard out here. It's always been hard but since 2008 and the slashing of public budgets it's getting harder. Jobs are unfulfilling and often not full time and do not attract pay rises, bonuses or the rest that used to make it bearable. Life on benefits is not a cake walk for those that play by the rules (I speak from experience, not from a Tuscan villa). It's not the overall budget on the NHS or schools it's the libraries that close and the sure start centres. It's the losses at the margins that the middle classes do not notice but the JAMs most certainly do. It's rough, the rich are not struggling or suffering and there is no end in sight. 2025! It's inconceivable that the electorate could accept another 8 years of austerity/belt tightening. So yes it is tough, yes the wealthy are not struggling like the rest of us and now many dozens, possibly in the hundreds die in a fire that looks like it was exacerbated by prettying up the outside so the wealthy don't choke on their brioche. And of the survivors, some are now sleeping rough and there is chaos in the response. 2 days before the election I gave up any pretense of being prepared to take this crap any longer and shifted to Corbyn. Not because he is some sort of genius or even a pleasant character but because he gets that we can't go on this way. That's the crux of it. Austerity is done, magic money trees are needed, and somebody with the nouse to inflate and grow our way out of the magic whilst providing infrastructure and jobs. I'll take the pipe dream, I'm done with the reality when that reality is made to look like a permanent fixture.
Fine until reality intrudes on your pipe dreams and leaves you and your compatriots in an even worse position. Real, rather than relative, poverty is almost (but not entirely) non existent in Britain. Things can and will get far, far worse under someone like Corbyn. When the country is like Greece and can no longer afford to pay for medicines then it is people like you who will be responsible.
The DUP are putting up the sink the lot balloon. They are going to scupper the Tories and come away smelling of roses. The Tory party needs to smell the coffee here or it will be game over shortly,
Anyone getting the impression Hammond and Carney are positioning themselves to leave a sinking ship?
They are clearly pointing out how poorly the government has handled Brexit since the referendum and the damage that can and will cause to the country. Carney will be off soon. Can't see where Hammond can go, though.
Am I the only one seriously pissed off that the young failed to turn out to stop Brexit in 2016, but managed to turn out in 2017 only to cripple our ability to negotiate it? Great timing, guys!
Your anger is seriously misdirected.
It wasn't the young who called an entirely needless election on the bogus excuse that the government needed a larger majority than it already had.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardln avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I voted Remain, but those Remainers who voted Corbyn or abstained have completely fucked our negotiating position, and probably achieved the opposite of what they intended. Not optimal.
You can chalk that up to May's bloody-mindedness I'm afraid. She needlessly went all Kipper the moment she became leader.
I abstained for the first time in my life, I'd probably vote Tory if Hammond became leader as he seems one of the few contenders who actually understands the economic perils of Brexit. Otherwise I'd abstain again - the only circumstances in which I would vote Corbyn Labour would be if Boris became Tory leader.
Yep - Boris or any of the other prominent and mendacious Leave advocates would drive me to Labour now that Warwick & Leamington is a Labour marginal.
You'd literally vote for a Marxist and a bunch of Trots that you detest, a group of people you know to be actively sinister, malign and mendacious, just coz you're angry about Boris.
You'd fuck the country out of pique. You are ridiculous.
I thought authors of psychological thrillers were supposed to have a handle on psychology.
You misunderestimate the degree to which the Cons have soiled their own pitch to the point whereby people think "fuck it". Most of the people I spoke to while canvassing who were of a similar mindset could afford (as I'm sure can @Southam) to withstand whatever Jezza unleashes on us, and are just furious with the Cons. If not for having held the referendum (illogical IMO), then for turning into UKIP.
Tezza wanted a large majority so that she could implement hard Brexit; not, as Ruth Davidson tried to say, so she could ignore the Euroloons. And plenty of Cons and non-Cons voters see that clearly.
It would only be madness if the benefits of not being in the customs union outweigh the benefits of being in it. We know where we are as things stand - we have certainty. What certainty can you provide about leaving the customs union, beyond the fact that it is likely to make it harder and more expensive to export to the EU27?
Leaving the Single Market but staying in the Customs Union helps no one at all. It is by far the dumbest solution of the lot.
It helps a lot of people whose jobs are dependent on the frictionless movement of goods within the EU. Thus, it also helps the taxpayer.
It won't help if we are outside the Single Market. That is far more important than the Customs Union. Like I said it is the daftest of results.
Further to the unrest and demo thoughts above, I think what the establishment has failed utterly to grasp is that it's hard out here. It's always been hard but since 2008 and the slashing of public budgets it's getting harder. Jobs are unfulfilling and often not full time and do not attract pay rises, bonuses or the rest that used to make it bearable. Life on benefits is not a cake walk for those that play by the rules (I speak from experience, not from a Tuscan villa). It's not the overall budget on the NHS or schools it's the libraries that close and the sure start centres. It's the losses at the margins that the middle classes do not notice but the JAMs most certainly do. It's rough, the rich are not struggling or suffering and there is no end in sight. 2025! It's inconceivable that the electorate could accept another 8 years of austerity/belt tightening. So yes it is tough, yes the wealthy are not struggling like the rest of us and now many dozens, possibly in the hundreds die in a fire that looks like it was exacerbated by prettying up the outside so the wealthy don't choke on their brioche. And of the survivors, some are now sleeping rough and there is chaos in the response. 2 days before the election I gave up any pretense of being prepared to take this crap any longer and shifted to Corbyn. Not because he is some sort of genius or even a pleasant character but because he gets that we can't go on this way. That's the crux of it. Austerity is done, magic money trees are needed, and somebody with the nouse to inflate and grow our way out of the magic whilst providing infrastructure and jobs. I'll take the pipe dream, I'm done with the reality when that reality is made to look like a permanent fixture.
Fine until reality intrudes on your pipe dreams and leaves you and your compatriots in an even worse position. Real, rather than relative, poverty is almost (but not entirely) non existent in Britain. Things can and will get far, far worse under someone like Corbyn. When the country is like Greece and can no longer afford to pay for medicines then it is people like you who will be responsible.
That's true Richard, and I'm aware of the danger but I have very little to lose and much to potentially gain from a Labour government. I don't have anything TO lose in truth, and the Tory party offer me nothing but a vague sense of financial stability that hasn't really stood the test of the last 7 years. I can't vote for more misery for me and my partner just to keep the champers flowing in London banks, and my personal circumstances leave me much to fear from a majority Tory govt. I'm not going to starve under either of them short term so why would I not plump for what's better at the bottom end rather than sniffing a Tory boot for 5 more years? It's that simple now the scales have come off.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
I voted Remain, but those Remainers who voted Corbyn or abstained have completely fucked our negotiating position, and probably achieved the opposite of what they intended. Not optimal.
You can chalk that up to May's bloody-mindedness I'm afraid. She needlessly went all Kipper the moment she became leader.
I abstained for the first time in my life, I'd probably vote Tory if Hammond became leader as he seems one of the few contenders who actually understands the economic perils of Brexit. Otherwise I'd abstain again - the only circumstances in which I would vote Corbyn Labour would be if Boris became Tory leader.
Yep - Boris or any of the other prominent and mendacious Leave advocates would drive me to Labour now that Warwick & Leamington is a Labour marginal.
You'd literally vote for a Marxist and a bunch of Trots that you detest, a group of people you know to be actively sinister, malign and mendacious, just coz you're angry about Boris.
You'd fuck the country out of pique. You are ridiculous.
Thing is not everyone sees the world in Daily Mail terms.
Boris and co believe that a No Deal Brexit is not a problem. That is sinister, malign and mendacious.
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
Of course - her position quite rightly changed in response to the referendum. Nothing wrong with that; it was perfectly reasonable to argue before the referendum that leaving the EU would on balance be too risky, and then accept the result of the referendum and move into figuring out the best way to implement it, given that the decision had been taken.
Boris is a slightly different case, though.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
A majority of the UK electorate want a close trading relationship and co-operation with our European neighbours, but without being in political union with it.
That wasn't on offer, so we voted to Leave.
It's amazing how few people understand this simple fact...
Further to the unrest and demo thoughts above, I think what the establishment has failed utterly to grasp is that it's hard out here. It's always been hard but since 2008 and the slashing of public budgets it's getting harder. Jobs are unfulfilling and often not full time and do not attract pay rises, bonuses or the rest that used to make it bearable. Life on benefits is not a cake walk for those that play by the rules (I speak from experience, not from a Tuscan villa). It's not the overall budget on the NHS or schools it's the libraries that close and the sure start centres. It's the losses at the margins that the middle classes do not notice but the JAMs most certainly do. It's rough, the rich are not struggling or suffering and there is no end in sight. 2025! It's inconceivable that the electorate could accept another 8 years of austerity/belt tightening. So yes it is tough, yes the wealthy are not struggling like the rest of us and now many dozens, possibly in the hundreds die in a fire that looks like it was exacerbated by prettying up the outside so the wealthy don't choke on their brioche. And of the survivors, some are now sleeping rough and there is chaos in the response. 2 days before the election I gave up any pretense of being prepared to take this crap any longer and shifted to Corbyn. Not because he is some sort of genius or even a pleasant character but because he gets that we can't go on this way. That's the crux of it. Austerity is done, magic money trees are needed, and somebody with the nouse to inflate and grow our way out of the magic whilst providing infrastructure and jobs. I'll take the pipe dream, I'm done with the reality when that reality is made to look like a permanent fixture.
The reality of a Corbyn government will be poverty and austerity for all when money walks. A level playing field, just not the one for which you're hoping.
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
I can't remember many of your 40,000 posts being all that complimentary toward the LDs. Not sure if you are a member or were - not that it matters very much.
As a member, I would be quite happy with Lamb or Davey leading the party. Norman was not the right person to lead us in 2015 - we needed Tim's energy and passion to get us up off the floor. The world has moved on and we may well be looking at a five-year Parliament.
I had a huge problem with our basic Brexit position which was "let's have a referendum on the Treaty and if we reject it, we stay in the EU" as I didn't believe the rejection of the treaty could possibly lead to that consequence. There could be many reasons for rejecting a bad deal but to argue that meant staying in was foolish in extremis.
I am a member and will be casting the ballot in order:
1. Lamb, 2. Cable, 3. Davey. (Should they all run)
My main concern with the UK is most certainly the rise and rise of marxist orthodoxy right now mind.
The DUP are putting up the sink the lot balloon. They are going to scupper the Tories and come away smelling of roses. The Tory party needs to smell the coffee here or it will be game over shortly,
One thing I heard (from Alistair Campbell on TV I think) is that *even* John Major didn't try to do a deal with the DUP to prop up his government...
Is that true? I've seen that he has come out against the deal.
At some point the bribes that TM will have to give to N. Ireland will surely become unpalatable to the english, scots and welsh and will cost the Tories seats in a future election?
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
I can't remember many of your 40,000 posts being all that complimentary toward the LDs. Not sure if you are a member or were - not that it matters very much.
As a member, I would be quite happy with Lamb or Davey leading the party. Norman was not the right person to lead us in 2015 - we needed Tim's energy and passion to get us up off the floor. The world has moved on and we may well be looking at a five-year Parliament.
I had a huge problem with our basic Brexit position which was "let's have a referendum on the Treaty and if we reject it, we stay in the EU" as I didn't believe the rejection of the treaty could possibly lead to that consequence. There could be many reasons for rejecting a bad deal but to argue that meant staying in was foolish in extremis.
I am a member and will be casting the ballot in order:
1. Lamb, 2. Cable, 3. Davey. (Should they all run)
My main concern with the UK is most certainly the rise and rise of marxist orthodoxy right now mind.
Bit depressing that your preferred order is the opposite of what you think is likely!
It would only be madness if the benefits of not being in the customs union outweigh the benefits of being in it. We know where we are as things stand - we have certainty. What certainty can you provide about leaving the customs union, beyond the fact that it is likely to make it harder and more expensive to export to the EU27?
Leaving the Single Market but staying in the Customs Union helps no one at all. It is by far the dumbest solution of the lot.
It helps a lot of people whose jobs are dependent on the frictionless movement of goods within the EU. Thus, it also helps the taxpayer.
It won't help if we are outside the Single Market. That is far more important than the Customs Union. Like I said it is the daftest of results.
No, the daftest result is a No Deal Brexit - that guarantees immediate and significant harm to the UK economy, which would probably last for many, many years. Staying in the customs union oils the wheels of commerce and provides a level of certainty to business, job security and a higher income for the exchequer. All are vital.
Comments
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/over-8-trillion-total-value-uk-residential-property-2016-1597268
The only gold at the end of the hard brexit rainbow will be for the successful lobbyists and most deeply entrenched conservative interests. The young and the poor - those without their finger in the pie - will, once again, be made to pay.
Has the country ever been so bereft of talent ?
The closest party to an actual liberal party in this election was probably the Scottish Conservatives who managed to hollow out great swathes of Lib Dem bedrock in the Highlands (The Inverness result stands out for me in this result), and the relative poor performance of the Lib Dems outwith ultra remain areas and a few personal votes (Swinson, Lamb) was telling in contrast to Ruth's Scottish Tories.
It seems to be in the low thousands planning to turn out but if that number is swelled by the disenfranchised and disenchanted things could get messy. There's also no official attendance or support from 'outer establishment' radicals so little to keep the lid on things.
Messy messy messy. Yet did Grenfell need to be handled so badly? Why is information still so slow in coming? Why have the fire brigade not reported how many remains have been discovered in the tower now they have been through each floor? Why are charities taking the lead when the council should have had this all in hand from hour 1?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reciprocal
IMO she was being over-praised before the campaign began, and she's now being over-criticised. She is decent, hard-working, genuinely wants to do what's best for the country, and I think had her Brexit positioning right. She genuinely wants to help the JAMs.
But, there's no getting away from the series of unforced errors, starting with the completely unnecessary arrogance towards Osborne, the muddle over grammar schools, fox-hunting, and the disastrous presentation of what was actually a reasonable policy on social care. She's continued to screw up after the election, with the ham-fisted announcement of a deal with the DUP which had to be retracted, with the failure to take responsibility for the electoral disaster, the failure to miove quickly to change her style, ditch her immediate advisers and become much more collegiate. Her response to the Grenfell tragedy has been tin-eared, although I think criticism of her on this has become an unseemly witch-hunt.
She was a very good Home Secretary, but is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle, and has turned to be an utter disaster, rather than the safe pair of hands we thought we were getting.
Keep May in place (but promote new talent to the Cabinet) and then have a completely fresh start with someone like Kwasi and Raab in time for 2022 is my refereed option now.
I fear you're right on the second point though. But that's what they voted for (in the case of the poor) or failed to turn out to vote against (in the case of the young).
of 47 has changed over time.
And of the survivors, some are now sleeping rough and there is chaos in the response.
2 days before the election I gave up any pretense of being prepared to take this crap any longer and shifted to Corbyn. Not because he is some sort of genius or even a pleasant character but because he gets that we can't go on this way. That's the crux of it. Austerity is done, magic money trees are needed, and somebody with the nouse to inflate and grow our way out of the magic whilst providing infrastructure and jobs.
I'll take the pipe dream, I'm done with the reality when that reality is made to look like a permanent fixture.
That's a big difference - for me a big positive - but others will see it differently.
I saw this interview and was absolutely enraged that McDonnell was allowed to get away with such a blatant lie. There was no come-back from the interviewer. It just confirms my view that the media are treating Labour with kid gloves at the moment. I've no idea why, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
At the time I thought you had the worse end of the deal - but now feels close to a coin flip to me.
If leaving the single market means hard Brexit, then what about leaving its decision making bodies but retaining free access to the market (a la USA, Canada, India, China etc)?
If leaving the EU Customs Union is hard, then what about joining a customs union with the EU (a la Turkey) but which thereby also allows us to sign third party trade deals?
I think on every issue there is a range of possible outcomes. A deal will be struck on something that enables both sides to claim a good outcome politically.
The whole thing is going to be a complete disaster anyway, but at least it's now going to be a shared disaster. If it results in the Conservative party being demolished under an avalanche of disdain and ignominy, that would be a very well-deserved incidental benefit also.
Re LD leadership , I expect it will be Cable . The Swinson fans of which I am one see this as a way to pass the baton on to her in 3 years time or so .
Councils have been able to borrow significant sums of money at very low rates of interests and indeed they (along with pension funds) were the only ones keeping large parts of the non-domestic housing market going in the depths of recession.
IIRC Lamb is pro fox-hunting. That certainly isn't going to help him.
It's offshore and not part of the UK.
That wasn't on offer, so we voted to Leave.
I abstained for the first time in my life, I'd probably vote Tory if Hammond became leader as he seems one of the few contenders who actually understands the economic perils of Brexit. Otherwise I'd abstain again - the only circumstances in which I would vote Corbyn Labour would be if Boris became Tory leader.
So no, you are utterly wrong. The presence of Grammar schools is in no way a negative for me.
Shouldn't that be sitting pretty well with you right now?
Whatever the result of negotiations, I don't think we can complain. Leaving was of such paramount importance that the consequences didn't matter. We have to live with that, just as we all have to live with any bad decisions we make in life.
The voting equivalent of calling with a terrible hand then folding to a raise when you have implied odds to call.
A five minute look shows that the 18-24 cohort in 1974 flipped to Conservative by 1979.
But putting it into an offshore bank account when John McDonnell has said he will go after tax avoidance in crown dependencies seems strange.
Wheels coming off. Election October I think with May gone after the QS creeps through.
As a member, I would be quite happy with Lamb or Davey leading the party. Norman was not the right person to lead us in 2015 - we needed Tim's energy and passion to get us up off the floor. The world has moved on and we may well be looking at a five-year Parliament.
I had a huge problem with our basic Brexit position which was "let's have a referendum on the Treaty and if we reject it, we stay in the EU" as I didn't believe the rejection of the treaty could possibly lead to that consequence. There could be many reasons for rejecting a bad deal but to argue that meant staying in was foolish in extremis.
@Richard_Nabavi said she should change her style. I don't think her style is an artifice; it is how and who she is. How on earth could she change it?
She is clinging on now, weak, and at the mercy of anyone who wants to impose their will upon her. But...I still don't think she should go. It would be too disruptive for the country and for Brexit*.
*such that it is.
Brexit irrelevant if Corbo wins another election - it's gruel for all.
It wasn't the young who called an entirely needless election on the bogus excuse that the government needed a larger majority than it already had.
You misunderestimate the degree to which the Cons have soiled their own pitch to the point whereby people think "fuck it". Most of the people I spoke to while canvassing who were of a similar mindset could afford (as I'm sure can @Southam) to withstand whatever Jezza unleashes on us, and are just furious with the Cons. If not for having held the referendum (illogical IMO), then for turning into UKIP.
Tezza wanted a large majority so that she could implement hard Brexit; not, as Ruth Davidson tried to say, so she could ignore the Euroloons. And plenty of Cons and non-Cons voters see that clearly.
I'm not going to starve under either of them short term so why would I not plump for what's better at the bottom end rather than sniffing a Tory boot for 5 more years? It's that simple now the scales have come off.
1. Lamb, 2. Cable, 3. Davey. (Should they all run)
My main concern with the UK is most certainly the rise and rise of marxist orthodoxy right now mind.
Is that true?
I've seen that he has come out against the deal.
At some point the bribes that TM will have to give to N. Ireland will surely become unpalatable to the english, scots and welsh and will cost the Tories seats in a future election?