If you have pension or other investments, just make sure you're not over-exposed to the UK.
The one thing I do actually have is a small but probably vital selection of 3 final salary pensions I can access in 10 years that will take me from starving pensioner to JAM pensioner. The question is do I stick and hope the damn things aren't scuppered or transfer them to money purchase and invest them in gilts and ultra low risk. The former I think.
If I were a betting man, I'd say the negotiations with the DUP are more or less ok on the "confidence" bit, but not on the "supply" bit.
Why?
May probably took away their requests for more money for Northern Ireland with a friendly tone. HM Treasury have been looking at it. Hammond has baulked, particularly with the implications for the Barnett formula, and said, "nah".
Now they are stalled due to the Hammond/May impasse.
If the DUP deal falls through it will have to be a national government - no other option is remotely responsible in these Brexity times. I'm guessing...
Hammond PM Corbyn DPM Boris as Chancellor with McDonnell as his Chief Sec.
That would copy 'The Quad' of the Coalition - historically the closest similar situation, and it worked quite well.
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!
I've always tried to provide objective tips here whether I like the result or not. If there is an autumn election I can't see past a smallish majority for Corbyn I'm afraid, much as that terrifies me.
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.
Fine until the NHS collapses because the country can't pay for it. Or until there are real riots in the streets because the civil servants haven't been paid for months. Probably best to make sure you are off the streets when the police start shooting back.
Look to Venezuela to see the sort of future Corbyn is offering. A country which has the largest oil reserves on Earth and should be one of the richest in the world. Completely fucked by Corbynomics.
If you have pension or other investments, just make sure you're not over-exposed to the UK.
The one thing I do actually have is a small but probably vital selection of 3 final salary pensions I can access in 10 years that will take me from starving pensioner to JAM pensioner. The question is do I stick and hope the damn things aren't scuppered or transfer them to money purchase and invest them in gilts and ultra low risk. The former I think.
Certainly don't do anything without taking advice. In almost all cases, the advice is to stay with the final salary scheme.
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.
I wasn't, with respect, talking about you. I am talking about a mothers, who are an important demographic, who typically see grammar schools as restrictive and anti-aspirational.
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.
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.
That, in a nutshell, is why I am so angry the Tories offer nothing to vote for when you're in the lower bubble. I have very little choice but to hope for a tax and spend miracle as the other option sees me getting kicked in the face repeatedly, albeit with a slipper and a 'sorry about that but the economy is surviving'
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.
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
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.
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
Surely there are no benefits of the Single Market, Richard?
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.
Fine until the NHS collapses because the country can't pay for it. Or until there are real riots in the streets because the civil servants haven't been paid for months. Probably best to make sure you are off the streets when the police start shooting back.
Look to Venezuela to see the sort of future Corbyn is offering. A country which has the largest oil reserves on Earth and should be one of the richest in the world. Completely fucked by Corbynomics.
I'll see what's on offer next time. The Tories can easily gain votes back from JAMs if they offer them something to vote for. Same with the kids.
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.
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
Surely there are no benefits of the Single Market, Richard?
Given that I have always wanted the Norway Option that is a particularly dumb thing to say to me.
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.
Fine until the NHS collapses because the country can't pay for it. Or until there are real riots in the streets because the civil servants haven't been paid for months. Probably best to make sure you are off the streets when the police start shooting back.
Look to Venezuela to see the sort of future Corbyn is offering. A country which has the largest oil reserves on Earth and should be one of the richest in the world. Completely fucked by Corbynomics.
There is such a gulf of opinion between what I think will happen if Corbyn becomes PM and between what you think will happen - surely we can organize some sort of friendly bet on 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.
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.
As opposed to the Tories who only care about themselves. This country is in a perilous state solely due to the Tories. I'd take Corbyn and co anyday over the Tories.
Even here in SL, the U.K. Is a massive laughing stock.
If you have pension or other investments, just make sure you're not over-exposed to the UK.
The one thing I do actually have is a small but probably vital selection of 3 final salary pensions I can access in 10 years that will take me from starving pensioner to JAM pensioner. The question is do I stick and hope the damn things aren't scuppered or transfer them to money purchase and invest them in gilts and ultra low risk. The former I think.
If you buy gilts and we get Corbyn be aware there is going to be a borrowing binge and wholesale reassessment / repricing of UK debt.
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,
Why does the government even need the DUP? It has a majority in GB as Sinn Fein won't take up their seats can pass a QS (just) on NI abstentions.
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.
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
It maintains the current import/export status quo on which tens of thousands of jobs are dependent. That is a benefit in my view. If you disagree, fair enough.
If the DUP deal falls through it will have to be a national government - no other option is remotely responsible in these Brexity times. I'm guessing...
Hammond PM Corbyn DPM Boris as Chancellor with McDonnell as his Chief Sec.
That would copy 'The Quad' of the Coalition - historically the closest similar situation, and it worked quite well.
No way Corbyn would agree. What's in it for him? He'd win the coming election.
I think he'd give it a go - if nothing else it would kill any future Tory attacks on his character stone dead.
If the DUP deal falls through it will have to be a national government - no other option is remotely responsible in these Brexity times. I'm guessing...
Hammond PM Corbyn DPM Boris as Chancellor with McDonnell as his Chief Sec.
That would copy 'The Quad' of the Coalition - historically the closest similar situation, and it worked quite well.
No way Corbyn would agree. What's in it for him? He'd win the coming election.
Indeed. If Corbyn did that he'd go down as Ramsay McDonald II. Why would he do that?
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.
Fine until the NHS collapses because the country can't pay for it. Or until there are real riots in the streets because the civil servants haven't been paid for months. Probably best to make sure you are off the streets when the police start shooting back.
Look to Venezuela to see the sort of future Corbyn is offering. A country which has the largest oil reserves on Earth and should be one of the richest in the world. Completely fucked by Corbynomics.
There is such a gulf of opinion between what I think will happen if Corbyn becomes PM and between what you think will happen - surely we can organize some sort of friendly bet on it?
A lot will depend on how much of his programme he is able to implement.
If the DUP deal falls through it will have to be a national government - no other option is remotely responsible in these Brexity times. I'm guessing...
Hammond PM Corbyn DPM Boris as Chancellor with McDonnell as his Chief Sec.
That would copy 'The Quad' of the Coalition - historically the closest similar situation, and it worked quite well.
No way Corbyn would agree. What's in it for him? He'd win the coming election.
Indeed. If Corbyn did that he'd go down as Ramsay McDonald II. Why would he do that?
Indeed, Corbyn would rather go to the country. Female millennials will win it for him. The posher they are, the more Corbynista they are, from my experience.
If Remainers think Corbyn will save them from Brexit they are desperately naïve.
He'll do what he did during the referendum campaign: spin-things out whilst making a token effort until A50 times out and we automatically Leave, and he can use the full suite of powers at his disposal.
Remember: he need pass no laws nor votes for that. One of the very few areas of Government where his intrinsic incompetence and disorganisation actually helps him achieve his objectives.
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. 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.
I'm saving this post.
Please do. The Tory Brexit right has already inflicted huge damage and were it to actually control all the levers of power would inflict a great deal more.
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.
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
It maintains the current import/export status quo on which tens of thousands of jobs are dependent. That is a benefit in my view. If you disagree, fair enough.
Yes, Customs Union still seems like the most consensual way for Brexit to proceed. It minimises the economic damage, while also I would argue being respectful of the referendum result (I still maintain that very few Leave voters cared at all about trade deals with the rest of the world, and won't be bothered to see that come off the table).
Single Market seems like a non-starter, since immigration really was a big factor in a lot of Leave votes.
If the DUP deal falls through it will have to be a national government - no other option is remotely responsible in these Brexity times. I'm guessing...
Hammond PM Corbyn DPM Boris as Chancellor with McDonnell as his Chief Sec.
That would copy 'The Quad' of the Coalition - historically the closest similar situation, and it worked quite well.
No way Corbyn would agree. What's in it for him? He'd win the coming election.
I think he'd give it a go - if nothing else it would kill any future Tory attacks on his character stone dead.
A grand coalition with the junior partner on over 40% of the vote would need a different balance of power to the Con-LD coalition. Two great offices of state for Labour, and McDonnell as Northern Ireland secretary to punish the DUP for being difficult.
Cameron holds a gun to the nation's head. Vote remain, or else. May holds a gun to the nation's head. Vote Tory, or else Corbyn. The DUP hold a gun to the Torys' heads. Jam for Northern Ireland or else Corbyn.
In all three cases the trigger seems to have been pulled, or be in the process of being pulled...
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.
Fine until the NHS collapses because the country can't pay for it. Or until there are real riots in the streets because the civil servants haven't been paid for months. Probably best to make sure you are off the streets when the police start shooting back.
Look to Venezuela to see the sort of future Corbyn is offering. A country which has the largest oil reserves on Earth and should be one of the richest in the world. Completely fucked by Corbynomics.
There is such a gulf of opinion between what I think will happen if Corbyn becomes PM and between what you think will happen - surely we can organize some sort of friendly bet on it?
A lot will depend on how much of his programme he is able to implement.
Well given that I think he will be good for the economy and the prevailing mood on here is somewhere between Armageddon and Venezuelan collapse of society... I feel there's enough of a gap where a line could be drawn.
If Remainers think Corbyn will save them from Brexit they are desperately naïve.
He'll do what he did during the referendum campaign: spin-things out whilst making a token effort until A50 times out and we automatically Leave, and he can use the full suite of powers at his disposal.
Remember: he need pass no laws nor votes for that. One of the very few areas of Government where his intrinsic incompetence and disorganisation actually helps him achieve his objectives.
His Union backers want Brexit too. Releases a few shackles that constrain nationalisation.
Presumably May and co have seen the reaction to a proposed deal with the DUP and have decided it is not worth the bother. Doesn't that actually make sense?
If the DUP deal falls through it will have to be a national government - no other option is remotely responsible in these Brexity times. I'm guessing...
Hammond PM Corbyn DPM Boris as Chancellor with McDonnell as his Chief Sec.
That would copy 'The Quad' of the Coalition - historically the closest similar situation, and it worked quite well.
No chance. General Election with Brexit put on hold for an initial 6 months (then dropped completely while we are occupied with various nationalisations. Tell Sid...)
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
That's not true. There are pros and cons:
Single Market but not in the Customs Union:
- Requires conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - Some customs checks and paperwork remain (declaration of origin), so not entirely seamless trade with the EU - Access to the Single Market for financial and other services - Public-sector contracts have to be offered without national preference - Quite a bit of EU regulation applies, including to service industries operating here - We could do our own trade deals with other countries and set our own external tariffs, subject to WTO rules
Customs Union but not Single Market:
- Does not require conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - No customs checks and paperwork, so entirely seamless trade for goods with the EU - Services and public procurement excluded - Less EU regulation would apply to us - Larger contribution to EU coffers than the Customs Union structure - We couldn't do our own trade deals with other countries, we'd instead mirror the EU ones and follow the EU external tariffs
The choice between the two (if they were on offer) would certainly not be a no-brainer. It depends on your priorities.
Edit: I had the trade deals point the wrong way round, now corrected
Starmer would be a great choice. Probably with Mandy in tow.
Have you seen Starmer being interviewed? Not the sharpest tool despite his background. I'd have him in the team but not running the show. Not sure he has any government experience or spent any time in Brussels.
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. 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
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.
I'm saving this post.
Please do. The Tory Brexit right has already inflicted huge damage and were it to actually control all the levers of power would inflict a great deal more.
Utter nonsense. Bollocks. Crap. And more utter bollocks.
I will *never* forgive you if your vote in a marginal seat puts Corbyn in power.
If Remainers think Corbyn will save them from Brexit they are desperately naïve.
He'll do what he did during the referendum campaign: spin-things out whilst making a token effort until A50 times out and we automatically Leave, and he can use the full suite of powers at his disposal.
Remember: he need pass no laws nor votes for that. One of the very few areas of Government where his intrinsic incompetence and disorganisation actually helps him achieve his objectives.
What you're saying is: prop up OUR crazy reactionary backward-looking fantasies. On no account do anything to assist THEIR crazy reactionary backward-looking fantasies.
You might ponder why that isn't a particularly compelling argument to those who don't subscribe to your preferred CRBLF.
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.
Mr. Tyndale, this country is like Greece, without the sun. We have been quite happily been printing money well in excess of the value of the total of anything being manufactured or made. Our banks and financial institutions have been issuing money from thin air on assets that have been mortgaged to the hilt umpteen times over, to disappear into off shore bank accounts rather than be used to expand the economy. Personal debt has risen to astronomical levels. And we have no backup plan.
The only thing in our favour is that the US is in a far worse condition than we are. The planet cannot allow the US to default, and by default, the UK either.
Presumably May and co have seen the reaction to a proposed deal with the DUP and have decided it is not worth the bother. Doesn't that actually make sense?
Just have a minority government. The DUP will largely vote with the government anyway.
... 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.
I considered Corbyn but I could not go that far, so I spoiled my ballot paper by voting Lib Dem
But I agree about the stagnation of Britain. It is what is forcing me to into early retirement and stopping me from continuing to invest in my business.
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
That's not true. There are pros and cons:
Single Market but not in the Customs Union:
- Requires conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - Some customs checks and paperwork remain (declaration of origin), so not entirely seamless trade with the EU - Access to the Single Market for financial and other services - Public-sector contracts have to be offered without national preference - Quite a bit of EU regulation applies, including to service industries operating here - We couldn't do our own trade deals with other countries, we'd instead mirror the EU ones and follow the EU external tariffs
Customs Union but not Single Market:
- Does not require conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - No customs checks and paperwork, so entirely seamless trade for goods with the EU - Services and public procurement excluded - Less EU regulation would apply to us - We could do our own trade deals with other countries and set our own external tariffs, subject to WTO rules - Larger contribution to EU coffers than the Customs Union structure
The choice between the two (if they were on offer) would certainly not be a no-brainer. It depends on your priorities.
Why not both (assuming you think a CU is better than not having one)?
EDIT. You missed one of the most important advantages of being in a CU with the EU - we continue to tap into existing agreements with third parties (one of the cliff edges)
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
That's not true. There are pros and cons:
Single Market but not in the Customs Union:
- Requires conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - Some customs checks and paperwork remain (declaration of origin), so not entirely seamless trade with the EU - Access to the Single Market for financial and other services - Public-sector contracts have to be offered without national preference - Quite a bit of EU regulation applies, including to service industries operating here - We could do our own trade deals with other countries and set our own external tariffs, subject to WTO rules
Customs Union but not Single Market:
- Does not require conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - No customs checks and paperwork, so entirely seamless trade for goods with the EU - Services and public procurement excluded - Less EU regulation would apply to us - Larger contribution to EU coffers than the Customs Union structure - We couldn't do our own trade deals with other countries, we'd instead mirror the EU ones and follow the EU external tariffs
The choice between the two (if they were on offer) would certainly not be a no-brainer. It depends on your priorities.
Strictly speaking, you could do trade deals on the basis your regulatory regime was different, and therefore talk about removing non-tariff barriers bilaterally, but, yes, I take your point.
Of course the DUP are playing hard to get. Why wouldn't they?
Mrs May holds all the aces. She should have said my way or it's Corbyn as PM.
How could she have screwed this up?
No, the DUP hold better cards than May. They're a united block of 10 MPs who all want more cash for Northern Ireland. OTOH The Tories are desperate not to see Scotland and the Southwest lose out in particular on any deal and the various formulas mean any NI cash is hideously expensive elsewhere.
May and the Tories have fucked this up good and proper. I could see no good reason for the election other than an attempted smash and grab on ~ 70 Labour leave seats purely for party political advantage which has hideously backfired. I'm furious with them, Corbyn will be coming in on their watch.
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. 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
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.
I'm saving this post.
Please do. The Tory Brexit right has already inflicted huge damage and were it to actually control all the levers of power would inflict a great deal more.
Utter nonsense. Bollocks. Crap. And more utter bollocks.
I will *never* forgive you if your vote in a marginal seat puts Corbyn in power.
Nope. It gives you all the costs of the Single Market with non of the benefits.
That's not true. There are pros and cons:
Single Market but not in the Customs Union:
- Requires conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - Some customs checks and paperwork remain (declaration of origin), so not entirely seamless trade with the EU - Access to the Single Market for financial and other services - Public-sector contracts have to be offered without national preference - Quite a bit of EU regulation applies, including to service industries operating here - We couldn't do our own trade deals with other countries, we'd instead mirror the EU ones and follow the EU external tariffs
Customs Union but not Single Market:
- Does not require conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives - No tariffs trading with the EU - No customs checks and paperwork, so entirely seamless trade for goods with the EU - Services and public procurement excluded - Less EU regulation would apply to us - We could do our own trade deals with other countries and set our own external tariffs, subject to WTO rules - Larger contribution to EU coffers than the Customs Union structure
The choice between the two (if they were on offer) would certainly not be a no-brainer. It depends on your priorities.
Why not both (assuming you think a CU is better than not having one)?
Yes, well that's what I voted for. The Great British Public didn't, however.
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.
I am now looking at selling my London flat and using the proceeds to buy a house in Barbados. Negligible transaction costs, no IHT, negligible income tax and closely tied to the dollar, so a good hedge for when the £ gets debauched.
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.
Care to bet on these predictions of doom under Corbyn? Say £20 (or $ if you prefer) to a charity of my/your choice?
If Remainers think Corbyn will save them from Brexit they are desperately naïve.
He'll do what he did during the referendum campaign: spin-things out whilst making a token effort until A50 times out and we automatically Leave, and he can use the full suite of powers at his disposal.
Remember: he need pass no laws nor votes for that. One of the very few areas of Government where his intrinsic incompetence and disorganisation actually helps him achieve his objectives.
What you're saying is: prop up OUR crazy reactionary backward-looking fantasies. On no account do anything to assist THEIR crazy reactionary backward-looking fantasies.
You might ponder why that isn't a particularly compelling argument to those who don't subscribe to your preferred CRBLF.
I think Davis and Hammond will do a very sensible deal.
Also, the Conservatives have an excellent record on the economy, and will lead the country through to recovery sensibly, efficiently and effectively.
Corbyn/McDonnell reject the most basic laws of economics and reality.
If you have pension or other investments, just make sure you're not over-exposed to the UK.
The one thing I do actually have is a small but probably vital selection of 3 final salary pensions I can access in 10 years that will take me from starving pensioner to JAM pensioner. The question is do I stick and hope the damn things aren't scuppered or transfer them to money purchase and invest them in gilts and ultra low risk. The former I think.
If you have pension or other investments, just make sure you're not over-exposed to the UK.
The one thing I do actually have is a small but probably vital selection of 3 final salary pensions I can access in 10 years that will take me from starving pensioner to JAM pensioner. The question is do I stick and hope the damn things aren't scuppered or transfer them to money purchase and invest them in gilts and ultra low risk. The former I think.
Gilts are *not* ultra low risk
Of course they are. If UK gilts go Tits up everything is falling down.
I doubt the DUP will vote down the Tories immediately, but we're very possibly looking at another election in 6 months to a year I reckon.
No way the DUP would vote with Corbyn, they might abstain but the Tories would still win with a majority of 3 0r 1 if Lady Harmon voted with Corbyn, very unlikely I would have thought.
It would be a tall order for the Labour leader to get all the other parties to line up behind him anyway without some of them abstaining or 'going sick' etc.
The Queen's Speech will pass with a majority of around 15 I recon, then it's into the Autumn and the party conference season.
There is not a hope in Hades in the DUP doing anything directly to assist Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
So they'll abstain at worst budgets and so forth that don't give enough jam to NI rather than vote against ? They must know that triggering another election would more than likely bring Corbyn to power.
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. 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.
Yep
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.
I'm saving this post.
Please do. The Tory Brexit right has already inflicted huge damage and were it to actually control all the levers of power would inflict a great deal more.
Utter nonsense. Bollocks. Crap. And more utter bollocks.
I will *never* forgive you if your vote in a marginal seat puts Corbyn in power.
Remember my words.
I will.
Dummy Spits Out springs to mind. You really need to get a grip
Southam didnt even vote Lab despite being a Lab member last year.
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!
I've always tried to provide objective tips here whether I like the result or not. If there is an autumn election I can't see past a smallish majority for Corbyn I'm afraid, much as that terrifies me.
Disagree - with a new leader and the real fear of a Corbyn government there are lots of marginals which should tip the Tory way.
Not clear to me how Corbyn increases his vote from where he is, while the Tories are likely to have been at their nadir
There is not a hope in Hades in the DUP doing anything directly to assist Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
How about indirectly?
Nor indirectly. Corbyn's IRA links didn't reasonate with the mainland voters in the way the Tories had hoped but all of the DUP MPs will have friends who have been victims of the IRA (Arlene Foster watched her Dad shot and had her school bus blown up) so they'll do everything to ensure he is kept as far from No.10 as possible.
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!
I've always tried to provide objective tips here whether I like the result or not. If there is an autumn election I can't see past a smallish majority for Corbyn I'm afraid, much as that terrifies me.
Disagree - with a new leader and the real fear of a Corbyn government there are lots of marginals which should tip the Tory way.
Not clear to me how Corbyn increases his vote from where he is, while the Tories are likely to have been at their nadir
I can imagine Tories going lower. Hard to imagine Labour going higher by much if at all.
If you have pension or other investments, just make sure you're not over-exposed to the UK.
The one thing I do actually have is a small but probably vital selection of 3 final salary pensions I can access in 10 years that will take me from starving pensioner to JAM pensioner. The question is do I stick and hope the damn things aren't scuppered or transfer them to money purchase and invest them in gilts and ultra low risk. The former I think.
Gilts are *not* ultra low risk
Of course they are. If UK gilts go Tits up everything is falling down.
You don't seem to understand what inflation is. Inflation and interest rates are coming back.
This is the very same Laura K who predicted that a deal would be clinched on the afternoon of June 13 – a week ago...
Laura KuenssbergVerified account @bbclaurak Follow More Queen's speech to be delayed for up to a week because new version has to be written after deal with DUP done - expected late tmrw afternoon Retweets 142 Likes 109
Of course the DUP are playing hard to get. Why wouldn't they?
Mrs May holds all the aces. She should have said my way or it's Corbyn as PM.
How could she have screwed this up?
She is the gambler who had been putting £100 a spin on red and has now lost so much confidence at the accumulated losses that she can only bet £2 a go. She will never make her money back.
Comments
Why?
May probably took away their requests for more money for Northern Ireland with a friendly tone. HM Treasury have been looking at it. Hammond has baulked, particularly with the implications for the Barnett formula, and said, "nah".
Now they are stalled due to the Hammond/May impasse.
Hammond PM
Corbyn DPM
Boris as Chancellor with McDonnell as his Chief Sec.
That would copy 'The Quad' of the Coalition - historically the closest similar situation, and it worked quite well.
Look to Venezuela to see the sort of future Corbyn is offering. A country which has the largest oil reserves on Earth and should be one of the richest in the world. Completely fucked by Corbynomics.
Oh and if you can afford it reinvest in a property in the eurozone
I understand = journalese for "I guess".
Even here in SL, the U.K. Is a massive laughing stock.
What a time to be alive.
He'll do what he did during the referendum campaign: spin-things out whilst making a token effort until A50 times out and we automatically Leave, and he can use the full suite of powers at his disposal.
Remember: he need pass no laws nor votes for that. One of the very few areas of Government where his intrinsic incompetence and disorganisation actually helps him achieve his objectives.
Starmer would be a great choice. Probably with Mandy in tow.
Single Market seems like a non-starter, since immigration really was a big factor in a lot of Leave votes.
How could she have screwed this up?
May holds a gun to the nation's head. Vote Tory, or else Corbyn.
The DUP hold a gun to the Torys' heads. Jam for Northern Ireland or else Corbyn.
In all three cases the trigger seems to have been pulled, or be in the process of being pulled...
But strangely no takers...
Single Market but not in the Customs Union:
- Requires conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives
- No tariffs trading with the EU
- Some customs checks and paperwork remain (declaration of origin), so not entirely seamless trade with the EU
- Access to the Single Market for financial and other services
- Public-sector contracts have to be offered without national preference
- Quite a bit of EU regulation applies, including to service industries operating here
- We could do our own trade deals with other countries and set our own external tariffs, subject to WTO rules
Customs Union but not Single Market:
- Does not require conformance with the Freedom of Movement directives
- No tariffs trading with the EU
- No customs checks and paperwork, so entirely seamless trade for goods with the EU
- Services and public procurement excluded
- Less EU regulation would apply to us
- Larger contribution to EU coffers than the Customs Union structure
- We couldn't do our own trade deals with other countries, we'd instead mirror the EU ones and follow the EU external tariffs
The choice between the two (if they were on offer) would certainly not be a no-brainer. It depends on your priorities.
Edit: I had the trade deals point the wrong way round, now corrected
I will *never* forgive you if your vote in a marginal seat puts Corbyn in power.
Remember my words.
I will.
You might ponder why that isn't a particularly compelling argument to those who don't subscribe to your preferred CRBLF.
The only thing in our favour is that the US is in a far worse condition than we are. The planet cannot allow the US to default, and by default, the UK either.
Corbyn as PM still unlikely imo.
Again people are putting her automaticallyina no-win position
'Don't do a deal with the DUP, they're bigots'
Then when that happens....
'Ah, she's crap at negotiating with the DUP....'
But I agree about the stagnation of Britain. It is what is forcing me to into early retirement and stopping me from continuing to invest in my business.
EDIT. You missed one of the most important advantages of being in a CU with the EU - we continue to tap into existing agreements with third parties (one of the cliff edges)
May and the Tories have fucked this up good and proper. I could see no good reason for the election other than an attempted smash and grab on ~ 70 Labour leave seats purely for party political advantage which has hideously backfired. I'm furious with them, Corbyn will be coming in on their watch.
That would be just the start.
Say £20 (or $ if you prefer) to a charity of my/your choice?
Also, the Conservatives have an excellent record on the economy, and will lead the country through to recovery sensibly, efficiently and effectively.
Corbyn/McDonnell reject the most basic laws of economics and reality.
If we did call Brexit off we'd have to give up the rebate. Join the Euro. Submit to the army. Etc.
You do the Math.
Oh, wait...
Spare a thought for us having to wear morning suits in London, replete with waistcoats, today!!
Signing-off before a burst a blood vessel.
It would be a tall order for the Labour leader to get all the other parties to line up behind him anyway without some of them abstaining or 'going sick' etc.
The Queen's Speech will pass with a majority of around 15 I recon, then it's into the Autumn and the party conference season.
Next up will be the Budget in November.
They must know that triggering another election would more than likely bring Corbyn to power.
I sincerely hope you're right.
Southam didnt even vote Lab despite being a Lab member last year.
Fortunately his kids knew better
Not clear to me how Corbyn increases his vote from where he is, while the Tories are likely to have been at their nadir
It started with the Con leadership election and has been getting worse ever since.
Hard to imagine Labour going higher by much if at all.
"the BBC has learned" = "while watching Sky we heard that"
Laura KuenssbergVerified account
@bbclaurak
Follow
More
Queen's speech to be delayed for up to a week because new version has to be written after deal with DUP done - expected late tmrw afternoon
Retweets
142
Likes
109
1:31 PM - 12 Jun 2017
Delusional