Not sure about these space ports being planned. The only fully British space mission, Beagle, was a complete failure. Plus, bank holiday replacement high altitude balloon services won't cut the mustard.
I'm hearing that the goat vellum for the Queen's Speech was not available in time so the Queen will be reading from the recycled paper of the pulped Conservative manifesto.
Hurrah that the plans for grammar schools have been pulped.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Elected five minutes ago and with a tiny majority. She might be a future leader - but surely too soon?
Even mentioning someone nobody has ever heard of is stupid, only Libdems could ever come up with that
It wasn't a serious suggestion. I'm on Vince. But now you've heard of Layla.
As someone who is eligible to cast a vote, I wouldn't take much notice of all this flam-flammery on the betting exchanges.
My understanding was Vince had originally decided NOT to re-contest Twickenham at a 2020 GE but Mrs May's ludicrous hubris forced a change of mind. The fact is he was an excellent caretaker in the Campbell/Clegg interregnum and in truth this is what he will be now.
The question is are we facing a full five-year Parliament or not and this is a question to which no one has a clear answer. Despite the bellicose rantings of some on here, no sensible Conservative wants another general election in the near future because they know they will lose more seats.
That being said, I'm also not sold on Vince as leader - he's a capable national spokesman on finance and other matters. He should be forensically examining the Brexit negotiations along with Nick Clegg but that's not the role of the Party leader.
As I said before, Norman Lamb wasn't the man for the job in 2015 - now, it might be different. I don't know about Ed Davey though he did well to re-capture K&S.
I'll go to the Hustings and listen to the candidates and make up my own mind. I imagine the Tories on here will have their opinions about the LD leadership - don't worry, I'll let them know who to vote for when It's their turn (which won't be that far away).
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Elected five minutes ago and with a tiny majority. She might be a future leader - but surely too soon?
Even mentioning someone nobody has ever heard of is stupid, only Libdems could ever come up with that
malc - if you are ready to settle our election bet of £20 on the SNP under/over 50Mps then could you donate the payment to the Erskine Care home for Veterans ? Thanks.
No. It was a democratnot. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Says you.
And if you get divorced and continue to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays...you are still divorced.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Elected five minutes ago and with a tiny majority. She might be a future leader - but surely too soon?
Even mentioning someone nobody has ever heard of is stupid, only Libdems could ever come up with that
malc - if you are ready to settle our election bet of £20 on the SNP under/over 50Mps then could you donate the payment to the Erskine Care home for Veterans ? Thanks.
I'm hearing that the goat vellum for the Queen's Speech was not available in time so the Queen will be reading from the recycled paper of the pulped Conservative manifesto.
Hurrah that the plans for grammar schools have been pulped.
< If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.>
There were clear moves to Labour closely correlating with the level of the Remain vote in a number of constituencies outside London in the election. The argument about London being an exception I'm afraid looks unconvincing after this election.
My impression is that the divide is strongest, and starkest, between younger voters in metropolitan and urban areas throughout the country, and older voters most particularly in rural and also deindustrialised areas.
As someone who is eligible to cast a vote, I wouldn't take much notice of all this flam-flammery on the betting exchanges.
My understanding was Vince had originally decided NOT to re-contest Twickenham at a 2020 GE but Mrs May's ludicrous hubris forced a change of mind. The fact is he was an excellent caretaker in the Campbell/Clegg interregnum and in truth this is what he will be now.
The question is are we facing a full five-year Parliament or not and this is a question to which no one has a clear answer. Despite the bellicose rantings of some on here, no sensible Conservative wants another general election in the near future because they know they will lose more seats.
That being said, I'm also not sold on Vince as leader - he's a capable national spokesman on finance and other matters. He should be forensically examining the Brexit negotiations along with Nick Clegg but that's not the role of the Party leader.
As I said before, Norman Lamb wasn't the man for the job in 2015 - now, it might be different. I don't know about Ed Davey though he did well to re-capture K&S.
I'll go to the Hustings and listen to the candidates and make up my own mind. I imagine the Tories on here will have their opinions about the LD leadership - don't worry, I'll let them know who to vote for when It's their turn (which won't be that far away).
The LibDems need to acutely pragmatic. They need to be noticed and relevant.
A hung parliament helps but a national recognized figure is a must too. Only Cable fits the bill. No brainer.
On topic, if Cable is elected, I expect that he'll soon find out how difficult it is for a septugenarian to run a minor party in the modern media age, where party leaders are expected to be - and have to be - available if not 24/7 then at least 18/7. He cannot delegate too much else an underling outshines him and raises questions as to why he or she wouldn't do better as leader. In any case, there are few MPs he can delegate to: by simply maths, he has to take on a much more prominent role than his opposite numbers in the Tory and Labour parties.
And the media will expect it. The LDs are a minor party these days: they have to fight for coverage - something Farron failed to really succeed in achieving. Cable has the advantage of much better and longer-established relationships with the media - expect favourable treatment from Peston (to the extent that ITV matters in news these days, which isn't much) but again it puts the pressure on him.
On top of which, he has to lead the running of his party in Westminster and the country. Some of that - but only some of that - can be left to others but MPs and members alike look to the leader both for practical leadership and for decisions, even in the consensual Lib Dems.
Mike suggests that Cable might do three years in role. That timescale looks reasonable if there's an early election. However, if parliament unexpectedly goes the distance, it's likely to be difficult to find a time where Cable can safely step down - we would still be one vote from a dissolution at any time. The prospects of the oldest party leader to contest a general election since Gladstone cannot be dismissed.
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
The LDs don't get the attention, well. duh. It's how you use the opportunities you get to put across the message you want and create a message that's simple, distinctive and memorable.
I suspect the LDs would have struggled at the last election whoever had been leader. Farron was no worse than Hague when he led the Conservatives (and did better in terms of seats). Youthful energy only gets you so far. I actually think Tim could lead the party again sometime in the future. For now, Swinson needs to be prepare to take on the role and this time she can have that preparation that Howard gave Cameron and the likes of Mandelson gave Blair.
Not sure about these space ports being planned. The only fully British space mission, Beagle, was a complete failure. Plus, bank holiday replacement high altitude balloon services won't cut the mustard.
OMG, read this and immediately thought of the book "Voyage of the Space Beagle" by A E Van Vogt. Blast from the past
The conservative official position was remain - Labours position was to basically not bother to hard to support staying in (we all know how their leadership felt about the EU) - remind me which areas of country voted most heavily for leave?
But only sections of conservative party to be blamed?
Even going back a few years which tory leader was it who went to sign a certain treaty on his own after the main event which bound us closer to the mess that is the EU?
Oh wait, that was Brown / Labour.
Plenty of blame to be spread around
The overriding blame must fall on the Tory party which tolerated and then collaborated with the cancer of Euroscepticism at its heart. Wet pragmatists like Cameron became so used to appeasing these people that in the end they and became consumed by them. Decades of avoiding the argument instead of winning the argument caught up on them.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't realise they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
A Facebook "friend" only voted leave because he'd discovered the EU had more than one President.
Whereas now we effectively have more than one Prime Minister.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
On topic, if Cable is elected, I expect that he'll soon find out how difficult it is for a septugenarian to run a minor party in the modern media age, where party leaders are expected to be - and have to be - available if not 24/7 then at least 18/7. He cannot delegate too much else an underling outshines him and raises questions as to why he or she wouldn't do better as leader. In any case, there are few MPs he can delegate to: by simply maths, he has to take on a much more prominent role than his opposite numbers in the Tory and Labour parties.
And the media will expect it. The LDs are a minor party these days: they have to fight for coverage - something Farron failed to really succeed in achieving. Cable has the advantage of much better and longer-established relationships with the media - expect favourable treatment from Peston (to the extent that ITV matters in news these days, which isn't much) but again it puts the pressure on him.
On top of which, he has to lead the running of his party in Westminster and the country. Some of that - but only some of that - can be left to others but MPs and members alike look to the leader both for practical leadership and for decisions, even in the consensual Lib Dems.
It is a highly demanding role. Some will point out that Corbyn is not much younger and did very well in the last election - indeed, he did well despite ignoring many of the things he "should" have been doing as a leader. That's true, but only at the cost of having led his party to a pretty disastrous and dysfunctional position before the election, where it was exploring new polling depths. A Lib Dem leader would not have the benefit of the same coverage guaranteed a Labour one. Nor should any party plan on the basis of an equally inept Tory campaign next time.
Mike suggests that Cable might do three years in role. That timescale looks reasonable if there's an early election. However, if parliament unexpectedly goes the distance, it's likely to be difficult to find a time where Cable can safely step down - we would still be one vote from a dissolution at any time. The prospects of the oldest party leader to contest a general election since Gladstone cannot be dismissed.
It seems certain now that the Tories are simply too toxic to be associated with as far as the DUP is concerned and they do not want to go down the same road as the LDs' coalition with them which ended in LD disaster.In the case of NI,i a similar loss would hand it over to the UUP and,ultimately,Sinn Fein.
Re the earlier points discussed on the single market, it also bears repeating , how many times the most hardcore anti-EU advocates *explicitly said that that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market, as Daniel Hannan himself maintained during the campaign.
That just simply means, as been rehearsed very many times ad nauseam, that Labour or anyone else can claim with some justification that voters did not vote to leave the single market.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Is Norway a member of the EU, then?
The problem is that most people who actually care about it thought that leaving the EU meant leaving the EU sphere of influence. You won't keep them onside for a Norway-style Brexit so you'd be left relying on the support of people who really don't care about the issue at all.
As someone who is eligible to cast a vote, I wouldn't take much notice of all this flam-flammery on the betting exchanges.
My understanding was Vince had originally decided NOT to re-contest Twickenham at a 2020 GE but Mrs May's ludicrous hubris forced a change of mind. The fact is he was an excellent caretaker in the Campbell/Clegg interregnum and in truth this is what he will be now.
The question is are we facing a full five-year Parliament or not and this is a question to which no one has a clear answer. Despite the bellicose rantings of some on here, no sensible Conservative wants another general election in the near future because they know they will lose more seats.
That being said, I'm also not sold on Vince as leader - he's a capable national spokesman on finance and other matters. He should be forensically examining the Brexit negotiations along with Nick Clegg but that's not the role of the Party leader.
As I said before, Norman Lamb wasn't the man for the job in 2015 - now, it might be different. I don't know about Ed Davey though he did well to re-capture K&S.
I'll go to the Hustings and listen to the candidates and make up my own mind. I imagine the Tories on here will have their opinions about the LD leadership - don't worry, I'll let them know who to vote for when It's their turn (which won't be that far away).
The LibDems need to acutely pragmatic. They need to be noticed and relevant.
A hung parliament helps but a national recognized figure is a must too. Only Cable fits the bill. No brainer.
Yes. It's simply step 1 - get noticed. Without that it doesn't matter about the rest.
His age won't be that big an issue. Potential toxicity to tactical Lab voters may be a concern due to tuition fees but I think that is largely over now. Clegg's defeat may have provided the final 'closure' in the backlash against the LDs among some on the left.
The next election is going to be about taking seats from tories, not from labour. They need to shift away from an equidistant position. The LD leader should try and play a role similar to Ashdown in 1997, which saw large scale tactical voting, and LDs up to 46 even as vote share declined.
Re the earlier points discussed on the single market, it also bears repeating , how many times the most hardcore anti-EU advocates *explicitly said that that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market, as Daniel Hannan himself maintained during the campaign.
That just simply means, as been rehearsed very many times ad nauseam, that Labour or anyone else can claim with some justification that voters did not vote to leave the single market.
If the EU wasn't a protectionist bloc - why wouldn't it give us free access to their market in return for free access to the Uk market ?
The worst bits of Brexit are the discovering what a turd the EU is.
Closed 455p first day of trading. A 15-20% discount on IPO is market standard so this was at bottom of range because government didn't want hedges in register
So we sold it for 330p and within a day it was 455p? So within a day you get a 38% return? That doesn't seem great value for the taxpayer.
Apparently shares were over 24 times oversubscribed and the same companies that advised on the share price also bought shares for their clients and made a packet.
The conservative official position was remain - Labours position was to basically not bother to hard to support staying in (we all know how their leadership felt about the EU) - remind me which areas of country voted most heavily for leave?
But only sections of conservative party to be blamed?
Even going back a few years which tory leader was it who went to sign a certain treaty on his own after the main event which bound us closer to the mess that is the EU?
Oh wait, that was Brown / Labour.
Plenty of blame to be spread around
The overriding blame must fall on the Tory party which tolerated and then collaborated with the cancer of Euroscepticism at its heart. Wet pragmatists like Cameron became so used to appeasing these people that in the end they and became consumed by them. Decades of avoiding the argument instead of winning the argument caught up on them.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't realise they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
A Facebook "friend" only voted leave because he'd discovered the EU had more than one President.
Whereas now we effectively have more than one Prime Minister.
The electorate were wilfully misinformed by the remain backing government. Their project fear based nonsense was terrible. I voted remain but thought that the government had a bigger duty. If they had been neutral on whether to stay, but required both sides coalesce around a manifesto that would have killed leave stone dead. Instead Cameron set up an opportunity to vote against the Government!
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
The LDs don't get the attention, well. duh. It's how you use the opportunities you get to put across the message you want and create a message that's simple, distinctive and memorable.
I suspect the LDs would have struggled at the last election whoever had been leader. Farron was no worse than Hague when he led the Conservatives (and did better in terms of seats). Youthful energy only gets you so far. I actually think Tim could lead the party again sometime in the future. For now, Swinson needs to be prepare to take on the role and this time she can have that preparation that Howard gave Cameron and the likes of Mandelson gave Blair.
There's much I'd agree with there, but I think they reinforce my points.
Yes, May did make a horlicks of the election. Partly that's down to her political style, which was far too personal and far too exclusive of those who should have had input, from cabinet ministers to paid experts; partly it was down - as you say - to her personality. But I wonder whether to what extent too her own health, age and experience played a part. She is over 60 and has held a Great Office for seven years.
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
The conservative official position was remain - Labours position was to basically not bother to hard to support staying in (we all know how their leadership felt about the EU) - remind me which areas of country voted most heavily for leave?
But only sections of conservative party to be blamed?
Even going back a few years which tory leader was it who went to sign a certain treaty on his own after the main event which bound us closer to the mess that is the EU?
Oh wait, that was Brown / Labour.
Plenty of blame to be spread around
The overriding blame must fall on the Tory party which tolerated and then collaborated with the cancer of Euroscepticism at its heart. Wet pragmatists like Cameron became so used to appeasing these people that in the end they and became consumed by them. Decades of avoiding the argument instead of winning the argument caught up on them.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
Yes yes Roger. We all know how much you loath the ignorant plebs who won't do as they are told and keep getting ideas above their station. But I am afraid Monte Carlo isn't included in the list of Rotten Boroughs these days so you can't just sit on your terrace sipping champagne and expect the oiks to do your bidding.
Re the earlier points discussed on the single market, it also bears repeating , how many times the most hardcore anti-EU advocates *explicitly said that that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market, as Daniel Hannan himself maintained during the campaign.
That just simply means, as been rehearsed very many times ad nauseam, that Labour or anyone else can claim with some justification that voters did not vote to leave the single market.
If the EU wasn't a protectionist bloc - why wouldn't it give us free access to their market in return for free access to the Uk market ?
The worst bits of Brexit are the discovering what a turd the EU is.
We are going to get a free trade deal. We can choose the Canada option, the Switzerland option, the Norway option, or something else altogether.
Canada doesn't pay anything, but doesn't get financial market passporting. Norway pays something, and does.
How much is financial passporting worth to the UK?
The Lib-Dems - (NOT) putting the democrat in democracy!
Just like the Conservatives who chose our esteemed Prime Minister based on barely 2/3 of the Parliamentary Party.
That happened by mistake though.
Nobody planned for Theresa's rivals to destroy themselves - And I think we can see now it would have been far better for everyone, not least TM herself, if there had been a full leadership contest to scrutinize her "abilities".
What the Lib-Dems are doing looks like a willful stitch up for not just one leader but two...
Asking for a friend who will be shortly editing a website on politics, anyone got a timetable for the Lib Dem leadership contest ?
Particularly when nominations close and the result is announced.
Usually takes about 6-8 weeks as, unlike the Labour Party, we operate on One Member One Vote and unlike the Conservatives, we actually consult the membership before telling them who have they to mindlessly obey.
In 2015, I think the London Hustings were early July with the result mid July so given we're a month on, I'd expect the result in mid August.
Asking for a friend who will be shortly editing a website on politics, anyone got a timetable for the Lib Dem leadership contest ?
Particularly when nominations close and the result is announced.
Usually takes about 6-8 weeks as, unlike the Labour Party, we operate on One Member One Vote and unlike the Conservatives, we actually consult the membership before telling them who have they to mindlessly obey.
In 2015, I think the London Hustings were early July with the result mid July so given we're a month on, I'd expect the result in mid August.
Yes, Vince is absolutely the correct choice - one of the country's most well-known politicians and capable of seizing territory from the Tory and Labour moderate zones. As for the other two, they're very much in the Bob Maclennan mould.
Re the earlier points discussed on the single market, it also bears repeating , how many times the most hardcore anti-EU advocates *explicitly said that that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market, as Daniel Hannan himself maintained during the campaign.
That just simply means, as been rehearsed very many times ad nauseam, that Labour or anyone else can claim with some justification that voters did not vote to leave the single market.
If the EU wasn't a protectionist bloc - why wouldn't it give us free access to their market in return for free access to the Uk market ?
The worst bits of Brexit are the discovering what a turd the EU is.
We are going to get a free trade deal. We can choose the Canada option, the Switzerland option, the Norway option, or something else altogether.
Canada doesn't pay anything, but doesn't get financial market passporting. Norway pays something, and does.
How much is financial passporting worth to the UK?
If we do so - what exactly are we missing out not being in the "single market" ?
Mr. W, in the 2009 season, the last, I think, with proper small fuel tanks, there was a wonderful BBC blog called the F1 mole. He basically determined the fuel (by looking at weight) of the cars in qualifying, and with which they would start the race, which made betting rather more straightforward.
I think, discounting the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix, my best result for tips offered in a blog remains in 2009.
All efforts to reintroduce refuelling have been resisted, so far.
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Layla is not standing. That's not opinion, that's fact.
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Elected five minutes ago and with a tiny majority. She might be a future leader - but surely too soon?
Even mentioning someone nobody has ever heard of is stupid, only Libdems could ever come up with that
That's not fair on the Lib Dems. There are Conservatives who are seriously touting Graham Brady as Theresa May's replacement.
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
There's much I'd agree with there, but I think they reinforce my points.
Yes, May did make a horlicks of the election. Partly that's down to her political style, which was far too personal and far too exclusive of those who should have had input, from cabinet ministers to paid experts; partly it was down - as you say - to her personality. But I wonder whether to what extent too her own health, age and experience played a part. She is over 60 and has held a Great Office for seven years.
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
The Tories weren't far off winning a majority, and a campaign that realised the true situation on the ground could well have seen them finish on 335 seats, but, conversely, they also came bloody close to being down at 305 seats, and Corbyn being in power now.
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
There's much I'd agree with there, but I think they reinforce my points.
Yes, May did make a horlicks of the election. Partly that's down to her political style, which was far too personal and far too exclusive of those who should have had input, from cabinet ministers to paid experts; partly it was down - as you say - to her personality. But I wonder whether to what extent too her own health, age and experience played a part. She is over 60 and has held a Great Office for seven years.
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
The Tories weren't far off winning a majority, and a campaign that realised the true situation on the ground could well have seen them finish on 335 seats, but, conversely, they also came bloody close to being down at 305 seats, and Corbyn being in power now.
Bloody close.
Has anybody worked out how many votes we were from Jezza being PM?
At least 30 Conservative MPs have indicated to their own Government that they will not accept leaving the European Union without an agreed deal.
Sky News has been told the MPs informed whips that the economic impact of a "cliff-edge" Brexit, alongside the failure of the Conservatives to win a majority for its manifesto, should lead to a rethink of the position that "no deal is better than a bad deal".
she holds an election so the headbangers cant blackmail her and instead the Diane Abbott wing of the party do
I can't say I'm surprised but this is the sort of behaviour that will tear the Conservatives apart in office.
They should go and make representations to May privately and always back her publicly.
The Conservatives' most passionate and deep-rooted hatred is for each other.
Just to reiterate my prediction that Brexit won't actually happen.
You can all start sending abuse now.
My view is when people hear the speech at 11.30 today many of the remains few doubters will awake to the fact it's happening. A pivotal moment with even less scope for turning back judging by the content.
You could argue that twelve months on, I am stuck in the denial stage of grief. I accept this is possible. I think though it's not denial, but thinking that the the state of the economy is so poor (and getting worse as we enter another recession) that Brexit will not be deliverable.
The people will change their minds.
I guess there's only a few like me and Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke clinging to this now.
You are by no means the only one watching this slow motion multiple car crash with a mixture of awe and horror.
Yes indeed. Mr Borough can add me to his list as well.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
and no sex
Who do you want sex with? Verhoftstadht, Merkel, or Juncker?
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Doesn't matter how often you say it, it's still not true. Norway?
No. It was a democratnot. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Says you.
And if you get divorced and continue to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays...you are still divorced.
And obviously makes good financial sense to both parties
Closed 455p first day of trading. A 15-20% discount on IPO is market standard so this was at bottom of range because government didn't want hedges in register
So we sold it for 330p and within a day it was 455p? So within a day you get a 38% return? That doesn't seem great value for the taxpayer.
Apparently shares were over 24 times oversubscribed and the same companies that advised on the share price also bought shares for their clients and made a packet.
And members of the public were allowed a maximum of 227 shares unless they asked for more than 1,000 in which case they got none. It was a disgrace and down to Cable.
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Elected five minutes ago and with a tiny majority. She might be a future leader - but surely too soon?
Even mentioning someone nobody has ever heard of is stupid, only Libdems could ever come up with that
That's not fair on the Lib Dems. There are Conservatives who are seriously touting Graham Brady as Theresa May's replacement.
This Graham Brady - who or what is he?
The Hon. Member for Altrincham & Sale West. Chairman of the 1922 Committee
AFAIK, he has no Cabinet or Ministerial experience.
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Layla is not standing. That's not opinion, that's fact.
The Lib-Dems - (NOT) putting the democrat in democracy!
Just like the Conservatives who chose our esteemed Prime Minister based on barely 2/3 of the Parliamentary Party.
That happened by mistake though.
Nobody planned for Theresa's rivals to destroy themselves - And I think we can see now it would have been far better for everyone, not least TM herself, if there had been a full leadership contest to scrutinize her "abilities".
What the Lib-Dems are doing looks like a willful stitch up for not just one leader but two...
A leadership election between May and Leadsom would indeed have given the chance to scrutinize May's abilities. Would that chance have been taken? I doubt it. As soon as Leadsom became her opponent, there could only ever be one outcome, no matter how badly May did (and she probably wouldn't have done that badly because I doubt that she'd have bombshelled anything as stupid as the social care policy into her campaign because unlike a general election, she wouldn't have needed a manifesto).
It took a year for the public to see through the deficiencies in May's character and political style, and it took as long for a lot of Tories to believe them - when the polls were as they were, it's difficult to go against what the public were saying. There's absolutely no guarantee that a membership election would have changed much, if anything.
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
There's much I'd agree with there, but I think they reinforce my points.
Yes, May did make a horlicks of the election. Partly that's down to her political style, which was far too personal and far too exclusive of those who should have had input, from cabinet ministers to paid experts; partly it was down - as you say - to her personality. But I wonder whether to what extent too her own health, age and experience played a part. She is over 60 and has held a Great Office for seven years.
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
The Tories weren't far off winning a majority, and a campaign that realised the true situation on the ground could well have seen them finish on 335 seats, but, conversely, they also came bloody close to being down at 305 seats, and Corbyn being in power now.
Bloody close.
Has anybody worked out how many votes we were from Jezza being PM?
And if you get divorced and continue to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays...you are still divorced.
And obviously makes good financial sense to both parties
And surely 'living in the same house', i.e. on an island in Europe, was always part of Brexit. It wasn't a vote to create an expeditionary party to find a new land to rehouse the population far away from this wretched continent.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
and no sex
Who do you want sex with? Verhoftstadht, Merkel, or Juncker?
Can we at least add Justin Trudeau to the list? He must qualify under the new Canada / EU treaty.
I'm fairly confident this Government will last until May-June 2019, whereupon we get the next Queen's speech. All its key Bills announced today will pass 2nd reading, but will be vulnerable to heavy amendment in the Commons/Lords, and there'll be some nailbiters at 3rd reading.
Questions are: does May last the course? Is she replaced in 2019 by Hammond, or someone else? Do the DUP continue to dance post A50 period? Is there a GE that year? Is there an economic downturn at the same time? Who wins it?
Layla Moran, age 34, LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, could be the "Stop Vince Cable" candidate. Her mother is a Christian Arab from Jerusalem, and her father is a British EU Ambassador. She has lived in many countries including Belgium, Greece, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan and speaks French fluently along with some Spanish, Arabic and Greek.
Elected five minutes ago and with a tiny majority. She might be a future leader - but surely too soon?
Even mentioning someone nobody has ever heard of is stupid, only Libdems could ever come up with that
That's not fair on the Lib Dems. There are Conservatives who are seriously touting Graham Brady as Theresa May's replacement.
This Graham Brady - who or what is he?
The Hon. Member for Altrincham & Sale West. Chairman of the 1922 Committee
AFAIK, he has no Cabinet or Ministerial experience.
His only experience is as shadow Europe minister under DC. He quit over grammar schools
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since).
Sorry but Hague was a complete muppet as leader with his campaign to keep the pound, not least because Gordon Brown had already saved the pound in 1997 with his five tests, and Labour had committed to a referendum if the tests ever were met. It is a nonsense to say Hague won the argument because it had already been settled: there was no argument to win. There were also reports that CCHQ ignored feedback from the constituencies of how badly Hague's irrelevant and unnecessary campaign was received on the doorstep.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Says you.
And if you get divorced and continue to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays...you are still divorced.
And obviously makes good financial sense to both parties
While simultaneously demonstrating that money isn't everything: a point that Remain didn't get in 2016 and appears to still not get now.
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
and no sex
Who do you want sex with? Verhoftstadht, Merkel, or Juncker?
Can we at least add Justin Trudeau to the list? He must qualify under the new Canada / EU treaty.
As a red-blooded male, I'm not sure I can think of a female leader..
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Doesn't matter how often you say it, it's still not true. Norway?
Political truth is about perceptions more than legalities.
Re the earlier points discussed on the single market, it also bears repeating , how many times the most hardcore anti-EU advocates *explicitly said that that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market, as Daniel Hannan himself maintained during the campaign.
That just simply means, as been rehearsed very many times ad nauseam, that Labour or anyone else can claim with some justification that voters did not vote to leave the single market.
If the EU wasn't a protectionist bloc - why wouldn't it give us free access to their market in return for free access to the Uk market ?
The worst bits of Brexit are the discovering what a turd the EU is.
We are going to get a free trade deal. We can choose the Canada option, the Switzerland option, the Norway option, or something else altogether.
Canada doesn't pay anything, but doesn't get financial market passporting. Norway pays something, and does.
How much is financial passporting worth to the UK?
If we do so - what exactly are we missing out not being in the "single market" ?
The biggest thing about trade deals (and this is true of almost all trade deals, not just FTAs) is mutual recognition of standards. Take medicine: we say that pharmaceuticals manufactured to EU standards are acceptable for sale in the UK, and they agree that medicines made in the UK can be sold in the EU. If you don't have mutual recognition, you would need to get every type of pill recertified by national authorities. The same is true of a host of other standards: electrical, etc.
Financial passporting is similar. Financial services is a very highly regulated industry. You can't just get on the phone and start calling people to persuade them to buy or sell shares. EU financial passporting was the principle that a firm (or person) that is regulated in one EEA state is free to operate and sell to people in any EEA state. It enabled small firms (like my previous one) to develop customer bases across the EU without having either local subsidiaries or agents working for other firms. Not having financial passporting will have only a modest impact on big firms (who all have subsidiaries in other EU countries), but it would be huge blow for smaller firms who don't have the time (or inclination) to open a foreign subsidiary.
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
There's much I'd agree with there, but I think they reinforce my points.
Yes, May did make a horlicks of the election. Partly that's down to her political style, which was far too personal and far too exclusive of those who should have had input, from cabinet ministers to paid experts; partly it was down - as you say - to her personality. But I wonder whether to what extent too her own health, age and experience played a part. She is over 60 and has held a Great Office for seven years.
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
The Tories weren't far off winning a majority, and a campaign that realised the true situation on the ground could well have seen them finish on 335 seats, but, conversely, they also came bloody close to being down at 305 seats, and Corbyn being in power now.
Bloody close.
Has anybody worked out how many votes we were from Jezza being PM?
The Lib-Dems - (NOT) putting the democrat in democracy!
Just like the Conservatives who chose our esteemed Prime Minister based on barely 2/3 of the Parliamentary Party.
That happened by mistake though.
Nobody planned for Theresa's rivals to destroy themselves - And I think we can see now it would have been far better for everyone, not least TM herself, if there had been a full leadership contest to scrutinize her "abilities".
What the Lib-Dems are doing looks like a willful stitch up for not just one leader but two...
It looks like you're reading the article headline, which is about the betting on the leadership election. If as expected more candidates declare there will be a leadership election, so where's the stitch up. Opinion is OK but it's nice if the facts are recognised.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If .
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
Says you.
And if you get divorced and continue to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays...you are still divorced.
And obviously makes good financial sense to both parties
While simultaneously demonstrating that money isn't everything: a point that Remain didn't get in 2016 and appears to still not get now.
We can test that with the counterintuitive: let's say World government and a single Global currency were on offer, and all respectable economists argued it would lead to "British" GDP growth being up to 50% by 2035, rather than 35-40% without it.
Interesting comments given the way your Party's anointed (as distinct from elected) leader, with all the advantages of a huge support network, friendly media and pots of corporate money to spend, made a complete dog's breakfast of winning a GE against Jeremy Corbyn.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
snip
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
The Tories weren't far off winning a majority, and a campaign that realised the true situation on the ground could well have seen them finish on 335 seats, but, conversely, they also came bloody close to being down at 305 seats, and Corbyn being in power now.
Bloody close.
Has anybody worked out how many votes we were from Jezza being PM?
I reckon about 8,500 votes.
Amazing!
A few more Tory unfriendly Editorials in the Evening Standard, and Corbyn could have been over the line! Osborne likely helped the Reds in 7 or 8 seats.
I'm fairly confident this Government will last until May-June 2019, whereupon we get the next Queen's speech. All its key Bills announced today will pass 2nd reading, but will be vulnerable to heavy amendment in the Commons/Lords, and there'll be some nailbiters at 3rd reading.
Questions are: does May last the course? Is she replaced in 2019 by Hammond, or someone else? Do the DUP continue to dance post A50 period? Is there a GE that year? Is there an economic downturn at the same time? Who wins it?
I can't see the point of replacing May with Hammond in 2019.
There's an argument for doing it now so he can deal with Brexit, but if May continues until we've left the EU then I think it will be time for a completely fresh start.
May, Davis, Hammond, Gove, Boris, etc. Should all depart after Brexit and let the Tories renew with a new generation.
The leader of the SNP does not sit in the UK parliament.
Does the Lib Dem leader necessarily have to be in parliament?
Choosing their leader from just 12 MPs limits choice.
Yes, I checked this out before writing my piece on leadership elections just after the GE. Candidates for all three main national parties have to be MPs. The rules really do need changing to enable individuals from outside the Commons to stand. Farage proved that small parties - and one with 12 MPs is a small party - can do just as well with a leader outside Westminster than with one within it.
Closed 455p first day of trading. A 15-20% discount on IPO is market standard so this was at bottom of range because government didn't want hedges in register
So we sold it for 330p and within a day it was 455p? So within a day you get a 38% return? That doesn't seem great value for the taxpayer.
Apparently shares were over 24 times oversubscribed and the same companies that advised on the share price also bought shares for their clients and made a packet.
And members of the public were allowed a maximum of 227 shares unless they asked for more than 1,000 in which case they got none. It was a disgrace and down to Cable.
The scandal was not the public issue and limit on share holdings, the scandal was the share allowance to certain commercial market makers to the new issue.
I wonder how a 'Common Market' European party would get on if it formed now?
Something along the lines of the entity we thought we were voting for in 1975. No eventual ain of a giant European country, and concentrating on breaking down trade barriers. An economic rather than a political union? Common standards would be fine and they'd promote trade, but the rest is political rather than economic
And obviously makes good financial sense to both parties
While simultaneously demonstrating that money isn't everything: a point that Remain didn't get in 2016 and appears to still not get now.
Just because the Remain campaign may have forgotten how to make the political arguments it does not make them any less true, nor does it negate the impact they will have as we negotiate an exit.
The leader of the SNP does not sit in the UK parliament.
Does the Lib Dem leader necessarily have to be in parliament?
Choosing their leader from just 12 MPs limits choice.
Yes, I checked this out before writing my piece on leadership elections just after the GE. Candidates for all three main national parties have to be MPs. The rules really do need changing to enable individuals from outside the Commons to stand. Farage proved that small parties - and one with 12 MPs is a small party - can do just as well with a leader outside Westminster than with one within it.
but probably not the main governing party..........
No. It was a democratic decision. There were 4m people who we can say explicitly wanted to leave the EU, together with an unspecified number who probably wanted to. Was it the issue most important to these latter? Perhaps not. But it was a boil that needed lancing.
I find it difficult to blame the Cons for holding an election to lance the boil. And boy was it lanced.
Democratic decision my ass! How can you reach a decision when 15,000,000 of the voters had not the faintest idea what the function of the EU was or how leaving it would affect us.
It was tantamount to asking whether we should get rid of the civil service so we could give power back to the politicians and save £350,000,000 a week.
The public are so used to parliamentary democracy they didn't belive they would be being asked a question if the answer actually mattered.
If
The problem of course is that no one ever defined what leaving the EU should mean. We have had manifesto by soundbite.
As some may recall, it always amazed me that the official Leave manifesto produced by the official Leave campaign was somehow deemed not to be, er, the official Leave manifesto. But there you are; it has melted into the hot summer sun.
So that leaves us with no one who can definitively say what Leave should look like. Some say sovereignty, others immigration, others something else. But no one can say "this is what people voted for".
Under such circumstances, leaving the EU and then signing up to the single market under CJEU jurisdiction is as much leaving as any other option.
Tyndall won't be happy, but I suppose there is a silver lining to everything.
Being subject to the CJEU, EU regulations and directives, paying large membership fees and accepting the continuance of the four freedoms is not leaving in any meaningful sense. That's like getting divorced but continuing to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays.
and no sex
Who do you want sex with? Verhoftstadht, Merkel, or Juncker?
Comments
Theresa ain't all that bad.
As someone who is eligible to cast a vote, I wouldn't take much notice of all this flam-flammery on the betting exchanges.
My understanding was Vince had originally decided NOT to re-contest Twickenham at a 2020 GE but Mrs May's ludicrous hubris forced a change of mind. The fact is he was an excellent caretaker in the Campbell/Clegg interregnum and in truth this is what he will be now.
The question is are we facing a full five-year Parliament or not and this is a question to which no one has a clear answer. Despite the bellicose rantings of some on here, no sensible Conservative wants another general election in the near future because they know they will lose more seats.
That being said, I'm also not sold on Vince as leader - he's a capable national spokesman on finance and other matters. He should be forensically examining the Brexit negotiations along with Nick Clegg but that's not the role of the Party leader.
As I said before, Norman Lamb wasn't the man for the job in 2015 - now, it might be different. I don't know about Ed Davey though he did well to re-capture K&S.
I'll go to the Hustings and listen to the candidates and make up my own mind. I imagine the Tories on here will have their opinions about the LD leadership - don't worry, I'll let them know who to vote for when It's their turn (which won't be that far away).
Who is the PB mole ?!?
And if you get divorced and continue to live in the same house, use the same bank account and take the same holidays...you are still divorced.
Particularly when nominations close and the result is announced.
< If people didn't know what they were voting on, that's the fault of (1) the campaigns and (2) the voters themselves. It is not the fault of the system. But they voted all the same and their votes count as much as yours. The decision has been taken and needs to be implemented. Corbyn at least gets this. If Labour was daft enough to game-play to inflict a defeat on the government on membership of the Single Market - with all that implies for immigration, sovereignty and payments - you'd soon see how much real support there is in the country for that policy set. Central London does not represent the views of the country, still less Provence or Tuscany.>
There were clear moves to Labour closely correlating with the level of the Remain vote in a number of constituencies outside London in the election. The argument about London being an exception I'm afraid looks unconvincing after this election.
My impression is that the divide is strongest, and starkest, between younger voters in metropolitan and urban areas throughout the country, and older voters most particularly in rural and also deindustrialised areas.
A hung parliament helps but a national recognized figure is a must too. Only Cable fits the bill. No brainer.
She has the charisma of last Sunday's leftover BBQ and the warmth of a Smithfield cold store so it's more or perhaps less than you imagine.
The LDs don't get the attention, well. duh. It's how you use the opportunities you get to put across the message you want and create a message that's simple, distinctive and memorable.
I suspect the LDs would have struggled at the last election whoever had been leader. Farron was no worse than Hague when he led the Conservatives (and did better in terms of seats). Youthful energy only gets you so far. I actually think Tim could lead the party again sometime in the future. For now, Swinson needs to be prepare to take on the role and this time she can have that preparation that Howard gave Cameron and the likes of Mandelson gave Blair.
Everyone suitably full of rage on this Summer solstice I hope?
Whereas now we effectively have more than one Prime Minister.
Re the earlier points discussed on the single market, it also bears repeating , how many times the most hardcore anti-EU advocates *explicitly said that that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market, as Daniel Hannan himself maintained during the campaign.
That just simply means, as been rehearsed very many times ad nauseam, that Labour or anyone else can claim with some justification that voters did not vote to leave the single market.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/20/veteran-revolutionary-conviction-attacking-tory-chairman-behind/
His age won't be that big an issue. Potential toxicity to tactical Lab voters may be a concern due to tuition fees but I think that is largely over now. Clegg's defeat may have provided the final 'closure' in the backlash against the LDs among some on the left.
The next election is going to be about taking seats from tories, not from labour. They need to shift away from an equidistant position. The LD leader should try and play a role similar to Ashdown in 1997, which saw large scale tactical voting, and LDs up to 46 even as vote share declined.
The worst bits of Brexit are the discovering what a turd the EU is.
So within a day you get a 38% return? That doesn't seem great value for the taxpayer.
Apparently shares were over 24 times oversubscribed and the same companies that advised on the share price also bought shares for their clients and made a packet.
https://twitter.com/thetimesscot/status/877441077736878080
Yes, May did make a horlicks of the election. Partly that's down to her political style, which was far too personal and far too exclusive of those who should have had input, from cabinet ministers to paid experts; partly it was down - as you say - to her personality. But I wonder whether to what extent too her own health, age and experience played a part. She is over 60 and has held a Great Office for seven years.
(By the way, May was elected to the same extent that the likes of Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Brown were. Indeed, she enjoyed a greater mandate among her MPs than any of that list bar Brown).
I disagree that Farron was better than Hague. Hague was fighting against the tide and did create a distinctive narrative - 'keep the Pound' - which won the argument if not the election: Labour never seriously again tried to join the Euro (it also united the Tory Party on Europe to a greater extent than at just about any point before or since). Farron, by contrast, had a favourable tide in two sub-quality opponents and while he went forward, still ended at a level no better than 1979. Had the Tory campaign not been so inept (had it had/used the equivalent of the Mandelson, Campbell, Blair and Brown that Hague competed against), the Lib Dems would very probably have gone backwards; he would probably have lost his own seat. Given the circumstances, that would have been unforgivable. A huge number of votes were up for grabs during the campaign. The likes of Ashdown, or even a 2010-era Clegg - people the public could see as a potential PM - might have won a haul the likes of which the Liberals hadn't garnered since the days of Asquith.
Canada doesn't pay anything, but doesn't get financial market passporting.
Norway pays something, and does.
How much is financial passporting worth to the UK?
Nobody planned for Theresa's rivals to destroy themselves - And I think we can see now it would have been far better for everyone, not least TM herself, if there had been a full leadership contest to scrutinize her "abilities".
What the Lib-Dems are doing looks like a willful stitch up for not just one leader but two...
In 2015, I think the London Hustings were early July with the result mid July so given we're a month on, I'd expect the result in mid August.
https://twitter.com/aidankerrtweets/status/877442608901050369
https://twitter.com/bbcphilipsim/status/877439629254852608
Does the Lib Dem leader necessarily have to be in parliament?
Choosing their leader from just 12 MPs limits choice.
I think, discounting the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix, my best result for tips offered in a blog remains in 2009.
All efforts to reintroduce refuelling have been resisted, so far.
That's not opinion, that's fact.
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/877125262470782977
Bloody close.
AFAIK, he has no Cabinet or Ministerial experience.
EDIT And I have £2 on her at 160/1.
It took a year for the public to see through the deficiencies in May's character and political style, and it took as long for a lot of Tories to believe them - when the polls were as they were, it's difficult to go against what the public were saying. There's absolutely no guarantee that a membership election would have changed much, if anything.
Questions are: does May last the course? Is she replaced in 2019 by Hammond, or someone else? Do the DUP continue to dance post A50 period? Is there a GE that year? Is there an economic downturn at the same time? Who wins it?
Financial passporting is similar. Financial services is a very highly regulated industry. You can't just get on the phone and start calling people to persuade them to buy or sell shares. EU financial passporting was the principle that a firm (or person) that is regulated in one EEA state is free to operate and sell to people in any EEA state. It enabled small firms (like my previous one) to develop customer bases across the EU without having either local subsidiaries or agents working for other firms. Not having financial passporting will have only a modest impact on big firms (who all have subsidiaries in other EU countries), but it would be huge blow for smaller firms who don't have the time (or inclination) to open a foreign subsidiary.
Would we vote for that?
There's an argument for doing it now so he can deal with Brexit, but if May continues until we've left the EU then I think it will be time for a completely fresh start.
May, Davis, Hammond, Gove, Boris, etc. Should all depart after Brexit and let the Tories renew with a new generation.
If that were true Mrs May would be gone by now as she was "perceived to have lost the election.
The following comments taken from an article on Lib Dem Voice might also give a differing view on the "perception" of what we voted for.
Nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.
– Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP
Only a madman would actually leave the market.
– Owen Paterson, Conservative MP
Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK.
– Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/876014273436282880