politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s GE17 campaign was the first to see net CON seat losses since the Blair landslide 20 years ago
One of the consequences of her statement that she’d like to fight the next general election is that people will recall what happened in June when nearly two decades of recovery for the party came to an abrupt end.
... why do we want to be part of this club of utter arseholes if this is how they behave?
We are no longer part of this club and they no longer care whether we think they are utter arseholes or not. It's business and it's all change.
That's taking a rather short term view isn't it? The EU still has some cheerleaders in the UK who hope to someday return the UK to the club - that isn't going to happen if they're seen as the bad guys.
If people think Brexit is going to be a disaster and that we will have to return to the EU with our tail between our legs the best strategy is simple.... just be silent and wait, let it happen on its own accord. Insulting leave voters and cheering whenever the UK suffers a setback in negotiations doesn't create converts to the cause, it strengthens the resolve of brexiteers and sows further division. You want people to sheepishly say "you were right" and then follow your original advice? Just sit still and wait for it all to unfold, and if it turns out you were wrong then you can be pleasantly surprised.
TLDR; No one says thank you to arseholes who constantly try to rub their noses in it. Just wait it out if you have the courage of your convictions.
Or to put it another way, she got the second highest amount of Conservative MPs in the time period, with only a small adjustment down from the high point achieved against a historically weak Labour party
If people think Brexit is going to be a disaster and that we will have to return to the EU with our tail between our legs the best strategy is simple.... just be silent and wait, let it happen on its own accord. Insulting leave voters and cheering whenever the UK suffers a setback in negotiations doesn't create converts to the cause, it strengthens the resolve of brexiteers and sows further division. You want people to sheepishly say "you were right" and then follow your original advice?
It won't work like that. You will have a diminishing band of people whose resolve will be strengthened, and an increasing group of people who wished they'd never heard the word 'Brexit'.
You don't need to convince people they got it wrong when the context in which they made the decision is no longer relevant. They won't be sheepishly saying "you were right" to Remainers; they will be angrily saying "you were wrong" to Brexiteers.
Or to put it another way, she got the second highest amount of Conservative MPs in the time period, with only a small adjustment down from the high point achieved against a historically weak Labour party
She really screwed the Tories, history shows once a party starts losing net seats, it's only downhill from there.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
That is why she has really pissed me off. She faced a critical period for the UK with a modest but a solid majority and she completely screwed it up against someone who made Kinnock look Prime Ministerial and numerate. And we will all end up paying a price for her stupid arrogance. As Mike says, it is truly extraordinary that she is still there. Incompetence and ineptitude on this scale should not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.
If people think Brexit is going to be a disaster and that we will have to return to the EU with our tail between our legs the best strategy is simple.... just be silent and wait, let it happen on its own accord. Insulting leave voters and cheering whenever the UK suffers a setback in negotiations doesn't create converts to the cause, it strengthens the resolve of brexiteers and sows further division. You want people to sheepishly say "you were right" and then follow your original advice?
It won't work like that. You will have a diminishing band of people whose resolve will be strengthened, and an increasing group of people who wished they'd never heard the word 'Brexit'.
You don't need to convince people they got it wrong when the context in which they made the decision is no longer relevant. They won't be sheepishly saying "you were right" to Remainers; they will be angrily saying "you were wrong" to Brexiteers.
You don't have to follow my advice, but it's the best course of action for those who are convinced that brexit is going to be a disaster. Constantly hectoring people and talking about pending doom doesn't make you any more right (if you are).
Furthermore, if you're constantly complaining then people are far less likely to listen to you when you need to highlight something of real importance. Useful lesson for all aspects of life, not just brexit chat...
She really screwed the Tories, history shows once a party starts losing net seats, it's only downhill from there.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
That is why she has really pissed me off. She faced a critical period for the UK with a modest but a solid majority and she completely screwed it up against someone who made Kinnock look Prime Ministerial and numerate. And we will all end up paying a price for her stupid arrogance. As Mike says, it is truly extraordinary that she is still there. Incompetence and ineptitude on this scale should not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.
The best interests of the Tory party are the best interests of the country.
I'm coming to conclusion that Andrea Leadsom should have won last year.
I'd hate to be pedantic, but that's no so bad, given they've had 4 major electoral events in the last 3 years, and they don't have another one until 2021.
... why do we want to be part of this club of utter arseholes if this is how they behave?
We are no longer part of this club and they no longer care whether we think they are utter arseholes or not. It's business and it's all change.
That's taking a rather short term view isn't it? The EU still has some cheerleaders in the UK who hope to someday return the UK to the club - that isn't going to happen if they're seen as the bad guys.
If people think Brexit is going to be a disaster and that we will have to return to the EU with our tail between our legs the best strategy is simple.... just be silent and wait, let it happen on its own accord. Insulting leave voters and cheering whenever the UK suffers a setback in negotiations doesn't create converts to the cause, it strengthens the resolve of brexiteers and sows further division. You want people to sheepishly say "you were right" and then follow your original advice? Just sit still and wait for it all to unfold, and if it turns out you were wrong then you can be pleasantly surprised.
TLDR; No one says thank you to arseholes who constantly try to rub their noses in it. Just wait it out if you have the courage of your convictions.
I am not sure if you are assigning a point of view to me personally, but for avoidance of doubt, I expect the Brexit we end up with to be very compromised and something no-one voted for, but not actually a disaster. We will make those compromises to avoid the disaster. One probable compromise is to pay the EU's exit fee. Whether reasonable or not, I expect us to pay that fee. The EU are literally banking on that assumption. I don't expect the UK to rejoin the EU in the foreseeable future but I do expect a very frustrating time while we simultaneously attempt to co-opt, undermine and bypass the EU. One unfortunate effect of Brexit is a big rise in resentment. I regret that. I think the referendum was profoundly stupid, but we all had to answer the question in front of us as best we could. I think many Leave voters made assumptions about Brexit that won't pan out, but I can't say their vote was empirically wrong. I don't intentionally insult Leave voters. Finally I don't think the EU are arseholes and we do ourselves a disservice if we think of them in those terms. I think there is a risk of the EU damaging their own interest by keeping us outside their orbit, but the money isn't really part of that.
She really screwed the Tories, history shows once a party starts losing net seats, it's only downhill from there.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
That is why she has really pissed me off. She faced a critical period for the UK with a modest but a solid majority and she completely screwed it up against someone who made Kinnock look Prime Ministerial and numerate. And we will all end up paying a price for her stupid arrogance. As Mike says, it is truly extraordinary that she is still there. Incompetence and ineptitude on this scale should not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.
The best interests of the Tory party are the best interests of the country.
More often than not I would agree with that. At the moment I am not so sure. Even although I think George is being a bit self indulgent he is simply telling it as it is. The rest of the cabinet needs to get a grip and get rid.
She really screwed the Tories, history shows once a party starts losing net seats, it's only downhill from there.
That wasn't true of the Lib Dems...
I should have said for the (main) governing party.
Downhill = More seat losses until they are out of power.
The Tories only need to lose around 10-15 seats and a Rainbow coalition becomes viable.
Aside from cancelling Brexit what is the hypothetical Rainbow coalition going to actually do? Sure, I imagine it will be "progressive" and obviously the opposite of "nasty evil right wing Tories" but has anyone actually looked at putting together even a rough outline of a programme for government? Given the leftward drift of the Labour party is there a huge overlap of policy with the Lib Dems?
I'd hate to be pedantic, but that's no so bad, given they've had 4 major electoral events in the last 3 years, and they don't have another one until 2021.
It's another nail in the "unstoppable momentum" coffin.....
If people think Brexit is going to be a disaster and that we will have to return to the EU with our tail between our legs the best strategy is simple.... just be silent and wait, let it happen on its own accord. Insulting leave voters and cheering whenever the UK suffers a setback in negotiations doesn't create converts to the cause, it strengthens the resolve of brexiteers and sows further division. You want people to sheepishly say "you were right" and then follow your original advice?
It won't work like that. You will have a diminishing band of people whose resolve will be strengthened, and an increasing group of people who wished they'd never heard the word 'Brexit'.
You don't need to convince people they got it wrong when the context in which they made the decision is no longer relevant. They won't be sheepishly saying "you were right" to Remainers; they will be angrily saying "you were wrong" to Brexiteers.
You don't have to follow my advice, but it's the best course of action for those who are convinced that brexit is going to be a disaster. Constantly hectoring people and talking about pending doom doesn't make you any more right (if you are).
Furthermore, if you're constantly complaining then people are far less likely to listen to you when you need to highlight something of real importance. Useful lesson for all aspects of life, not just brexit chat...
And the more the hectoring, the more the question arises "What did you do in the war, daddy?" Looking back, I deeply regret that I did nothing for Remain except vote for it, but my excuse is that I was not at all confident what the right answer was. The Remainer bullies, who are more certain about what the right answer was than I have ever been about anything, and who have hours a day to devote to politics via PB, do need reminding that there was no actual law against them going out and actually canvassing for the result they wanted, and there wasn't even the excuse that yebbut I would have to travel because I live in a safe constituency.
I am not sure if you are assigning a point of view to me personally, but for avoidance of doubt, I expect the Brexit we end up with to be very compromised and something no-one voted for, but not actually a disaster. We will make those compromises to avoid the disaster. One probable compromise is to pay the EU's exit fee. Whether reasonable or not, I expect us to pay that fee. The EU are literally banking on that assumption. I don't expect the UK to rejoin the EU in the foreseeable future but I do expect a very frustrating time while we simultaneously attempt to co-opt, undermine and bypass the EU. One unfortunate effect of Brexit is a big rise in resentment. I regret that. I think the referendum was profoundly stupid, but we all had to answer the question in front of us as best we could. I think many Leave voters made assumptions about Brexit that won't pan out, but I can't say their vote was empirically wrong. I don't intentionally insult Leave voters. Finally I don't think the EU are arseholes and we do ourselves a disservice if we think of them in those terms. I think there is a risk of the EU damaging their own interest by keeping us outside their orbit, but the money isn't really part of that.
My first paragraph was aimed, the second was more just a general observation of how some people approach this debate (thinking more of williamglenn and Scott_P) and how their tactics might be undermining their cause rather than aiding it.
I don't think Brexit is going to be a slam dunk but I thought it was a risk worth taking, especially as at some point we were either going to have to embrace federalism and the euro or take a more detached position. To a certain point my vote to leave was a preemptive one, assuming that leaving in 10, 15, or 20 years would be even more difficult than leaving now.
I don't think Brexit is going to be a slam dunk but I thought it was a risk worth taking, especially as at some point we were either going to have to embrace federalism and the euro or take a more detached position. To a certain point my vote to leave was a preemptive one, assuming that leaving in 10, 15, or 20 years would be even more difficult than leaving now.
From my perspective that detached position is exactly what we've had since the Euro was introduced. Brexit, far from freeing us from the risk of further integration, actually puts us in a position where that may be the only option. We've brought matters to a head, but we still have no clear idea of what the outcome will be. The crisis is ahead of us, not behind us.
Aside from cancelling Brexit what is the hypothetical Rainbow coalition going to actually do?
It would do what they can agree on, which comprises wasting money, prioritising producer interests, increasing burdens on business, increasing taxes, increasing the deficit to an even higher level, reversing some of the progress in education, and various wacky social measures.
As regards Brexit, who knows what they would do? Cancelling it is unlikely to be an option, and in any case McDonnell and Corbyn don't want to cancel it.
There's an air of febrility around Conservatives at present that suggests that something could easily happen very quickly. It might even happen with no one particularly meaning it to. The government seems to be taking a dangerous corner.
Or to put it another way, she got the second highest amount of Conservative MPs in the time period, with only a small adjustment down from the high point achieved against a historically weak Labour party
Wasn't why she called the election
True, but 317 (May) is still, for example, a lot more than 166 (Hague).
Criticism of May is valid, but it should be recognised that she's still dealing with the Tories enduring unpopularity that's kept them to one small majority in 20 years
There's an air of febrility around Conservatives at present that suggests that something could easily happen very quickly. It might even happen with no one particularly meaning it to. The government seems to be taking a dangerous corner.
Talking of dangerous corners, how are your driving lessons going?
I don't think Brexit is going to be a slam dunk but I thought it was a risk worth taking, especially as at some point we were either going to have to embrace federalism and the euro or take a more detached position. To a certain point my vote to leave was a preemptive one, assuming that leaving in 10, 15, or 20 years would be even more difficult than leaving now.
From my perspective that detached position is exactly what we've had since the Euro was introduced. Brexit, far from freeing us from the risk of further integration, actually puts us in a position where that may be the only option. We've brought matters to a head, but we still have no clear idea of what the outcome will be. The crisis is ahead of us, not behind us.
I'm going to shock you in half agreeing with you. We have been partially detached from the EU for some time in an unsustainable situation. To your credit you are resolute in arguing for full participation in the EU, you don't hang to the notion that the status quo is somehow on offer as was suggested during the campaign (For the record, both campaigns were crap) and that further integration is inevitable if we are to remain a member given that the EU must head in that direction in order to preserve monetary union. The EU will in time become a nation state, in practice if not in name - partial membership won't be on offer when that comes to pass.
There's an air of febrility around Conservatives at present that suggests that something could easily happen very quickly. It might even happen with no one particularly meaning it to. The government seems to be taking a dangerous corner.
Talking of dangerous corners, how are your driving lessons going?
I was surprised how familiar it all was once I got back behind the wheel. I had two 2 hour refresher lessons and I am not necessarily going to have any more. I'll probably get a car club membership and use a car for a few hours at the weekend by myself. I need more practice than coaching.
I'll admit I was rather shocked by Theresa May's answer to my question over whether she wanted to fight the next general election.
She responded with a straight "Yes."
Firstly, she'd not said it before; secondly it was an unequivocal answer to a direct question by a Prime Minister who often avoids and deflects with pre-planned soundbites, not always relevant to the inquiry.
Then I was left wondering, what choice did she have? At some point the Prime Minister had to put this question to bed. With reports, perhaps "fake news," suggesting she'd set a date to resign - it was time to take a position.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
I think that is correct.
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
I think that's what could have happened if it had been 52:48 to Remain. The good thing about this process is that we have unavoidable time pressure to get to some kind of consensus on the way forwards.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
I think that is correct.
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
Why do you say that? May could just have equally (and probably more likely) lost those seats due to social care...
'The extraordinary thing is that she’s still there' - may be, may be not
As the incumbent PM she has more stick-ability than a leader of the opposition.
Her tenure at the top is so far very short and at the time of the election with no overall majority the PM has breathing space from serious internal strife, assuming the party wants to retain power.
Around the time of the election was the best time to challenge. The time needed negotiating a deal with DUP saved her there
It isn't the best time to take on the top job, unless you have a substantial teflon coating it will be hard to escape lumps of detritus and effluent from the Brexit shenanigans adhering to you with permanence.
Would be successors recognise that the ideal time for a coup is late 2019 or 2020. Gives them a up to couple of years in No 10 to build a reputation, brand and image as prime-ministerial.
They need time to learn how to fight JC and his style of campaign (is a hard task) and politics presented from his perspective.
From a historic viewpoint in the party you don't want to be seen as the one with blood on your hands as you slip the knife back into your pocket. You may not win.
None of the potential challengers were in a challenge and campaign ready mode after the election, as the polls had indicated (for most of the time) a Tory landslide, so the assumption was a popular and successful leader, not one who needed challenging after the election.
I don't think Brexit is going to be a slam dunk but I thought it was a risk worth taking, especially as at some point we were either going to have to embrace federalism and the euro or take a more detached position. To a certain point my vote to leave was a preemptive one, assuming that leaving in 10, 15, or 20 years would be even more difficult than leaving now.
From my perspective that detached position is exactly what we've had since the Euro was introduced. Brexit, far from freeing us from the risk of further integration, actually puts us in a position where that may be the only option. We've brought matters to a head, but we still have no clear idea of what the outcome will be. The crisis is ahead of us, not behind us.
I'm going to shock you in half agreeing with you. We have been partially detached from the EU for some time in an unsustainable situation. To your credit you are resolute in arguing for full participation in the EU, you don't hang to the notion that the status quo is somehow on offer as was suggested during the campaign (For the record, both campaigns were crap) and that further integration is inevitable if we are to remain a member given that the EU must head in that direction in order to preserve monetary union. The EU will in time become a nation state, in practice if not in name - partial membership won't be on offer when that comes to pass.
Indeed, I agree too. However, how to create it and what then?
The contrast with the birth of the USA is enormous. They spent a few months in about 1787 thrashing out states' rights vs the centre and it's held ever since, though they fudged slavery as an issue and it nearly cost them their unity 75 odd years later. At least they were building on one language, legal system, and a common history, including in arms together.
How does the EU achieve something like that with democratic consent? Nobody with real clout like a Merkel has actually proposed just that with a 10 year deadline or whatever. It's all, salami slice here, nudge there, don't look at what the left hand is doing under the table look at the right one, and vote against integration and you have to do it again because nothing can stand in the way of the Project. It's cobbled together because they are scared of actually having their 1787 moment and finding out people don't actually want it. Hence the stealth.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
This is the media trying to manufacture a story. What else was she to say?
Perhaps:
"I believe that a Prime Minister should want to achieve things and not just squat in office. I have an important job to do leading the country through Brexit and for now I'm focussed on that. If I feel that I have a further contribution to make at the end of that process and the country wishes me to continue, then I will seek to make that contribution."
Theresa May excels in that kind of waffle. It's surprising that she didn't offer it on this occasion.
I'm going to shock you in half agreeing with you. We have been partially detached from the EU for some time in an unsustainable situation. To your credit you are resolute in arguing for full participation in the EU, you don't hang to the notion that the status quo is somehow on offer as was suggested during the campaign (For the record, both campaigns were crap) and that further integration is inevitable if we are to remain a member given that the EU must head in that direction in order to preserve monetary union. The EU will in time become a nation state, in practice if not in name - partial membership won't be on offer when that comes to pass.
Indeed, I agree too. However, how to create it and what then?
The contrast with the birth of the USA is enormous. They spent a few months in about 1787 thrashing out states' rights vs the centre and it's held ever since, though they fudged slavery as an issue and it nearly cost them their unity 75 odd years later. At least they were building on one language, legal system, and a common history, including in arms together.
How does the EU achieve something like that with democratic consent? Nobody with real clout like a Merkel has actually proposed just that with a 10 year deadline or whatever. It's all, salami slice here, nudge there, don't look at what the left hand is doing under the table look at the right one, and vote against integration and you have to do it again because nothing can stand in the way of the Project. It's cobbled together because they are scared of actually having their 1787 moment and finding out people don't actually want it. Hence the stealth.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim jong un method. Or Tito etc.
Well that means they're bankrupt unless they can persuade supporters to pay debts as they become due. In fact I'm quite surprised they're in such poor financial health seeing as they have ~ 2000 members per seat, a number Labour are at just over half of. With a relatively huge membership, it must take some piss poor financial planning to attain a negative net worth.
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim joun un method. Or Tito etc.
An interesting theory, but:
1) the EU isn't becoming a nation state 2) outside the UK, the EU itself is reasonably popular in the rest of the EU, and apparently getting more so in many member states if recent polling is to be believed and 3) the UK itself is a pretty good example of how a state can be imposed top down with considerable success.
Indeed, I agree too. However, how to create it and what then?
The contrast with the birth of the USA is enormous. They spent a few months in about 1787 thrashing out states' rights vs the centre and it's held ever since, though they fudged slavery as an issue and it nearly cost them their unity 75 odd years later. At least they were building on one language, legal system, and a common history, including in arms together.
How does the EU achieve something like that with democratic consent? Nobody with real clout like a Merkel has actually proposed just that with a 10 year deadline or whatever. It's all, salami slice here, nudge there, don't look at what the left hand is doing under the table look at the right one, and vote against integration and you have to do it again because nothing can stand in the way of the Project. It's cobbled together because they are scared of actually having their 1787 moment and finding out people don't actually want it. Hence the stealth.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim joun un method. Or Tito etc.
The borders in continental Europe have been considerably more fluid over the years and as a result cultures have naturally begun to blend together and there is more of a shared identity. Its not a homogeneous blob, but neither is the USA, which after the initial "stolen land" stage had further bits added later on.
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim joun un method. Or Tito etc.
An interesting theory, but:
1) the EU isn't becoming a nation state 2) outside the UK, the EU itself is reasonably popular in the rest of the EU, and apparently getting more so in many member states if recent polling is to be believed and 3) the UK itself is a pretty good example of how a state can be imposed top down with considerable success.
Well by my reckoning it only took about 974 years of on and off warfare to impose England top down on Wales politically, and Leanne Wood's not keen now so that's another 602 not out.
Malc's probably penning his reply to you with his sgian dubh as we speak!
This is the media trying to manufacture a story. What else was she to say?
What I'm focused on [insert journalist name here] is ensuring that we get the best Brexit deal for Britain. This isn't the time for petty politics, this is a time for us to come together/roll our sleeves/get down to work and negotiate to get the best possible deal from Brexit. etc. etc. etc.
She did it so consistently in the general election campaign...
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim joun un method. Or Tito etc.
An interesting theory, but:
1) the EU isn't becoming a nation state 2) outside the UK, the EU itself is reasonably popular in the rest of the EU, and apparently getting more so in many member states if recent polling is to be believed and 3) the UK itself is a pretty good example of how a state can be imposed top down with considerable success.
It might not ever technically become a nation state, but it needs much deeper integration if it is to persist with monetary union, unless the gap between Germany and Mediterranean states can just be left to grow larger and larger.
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim joun un method. Or Tito etc.
An interesting theory, but:
1) the EU isn't becoming a nation state 2) outside the UK, the EU itself is reasonably popular in the rest of the EU, and apparently getting more so in many member states if recent polling is to be believed and 3) the UK itself is a pretty good example of how a state can be imposed top down with considerable success.
Well by my reckoning it only took about 974 years of on and off warfare to impose England top down on Wales politically, and Leanne Wood's not keen now so that's another 602 not out.
Malc's probably penning his reply to you with his sgian dubh as we speak!
What about Ireland? If top down imposition of statehood was so easy we wouldn't be worrying about the Irish border now!
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim joun un method. Or Tito etc.
An interesting theory, but:
1) the EU isn't becoming a nation state 2) outside the UK, the EU itself is reasonably popular in the rest of the EU, and apparently getting more so in many member states if recent polling is to be believed and 3) the UK itself is a pretty good example of how a state can be imposed top down with considerable success.
It has no choice. If it wants monetary union to survive in the long term it has to gave political union even if it is only in all but name. You simply cannot have different countries pursuing divergent taxation and spending policies within a single monetary framework in the long term.
Mr. Owl, fair enough, though I've not heard of this Owain fellow. Haven't looked at much history that recent.
Personally, I'd go from when Edward I crushed Llewellyn, but there we are.
Mr. rkrkrk, and was constantly criticised (fairly) for not answering questions.
History, as taught in England is very, very Anglo-centric. Owain Glyndwr was, at one stage, within a whisker of achieving Welsh independence. Let down, it could be argued, by the French and to some extent by the Scots.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
Mr. Owl, fair enough, though I've not heard of this Owain fellow. Haven't looked at much history that recent.
Personally, I'd go from when Edward I crushed Llewellyn, but there we are.
Mr. rkrkrk, and was constantly criticised (fairly) for not answering questions.
History, as taught in England is very, very Anglo-centric. Owain Glyndwr was, at one stage, within a whisker of achieving Welsh independence. Let down, it could be argued, by the French and to some extent by the Scots.
Mr. rkrkrk, and was constantly criticised (fairly) for not answering questions.
Part of the art of being a politician is knowing when not to answer a question I think. I almost always prefer straight answers - but even I can see that sometimes the best thing is to lie or obfuscate.
Whether this was one of those times I don't know. But having so uncharacteristically given a straight answer to such a juicy question - we/she can hardly be surprised that it is news.
Possibly, as others speculated, she intended it to be news.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
I think that is correct.
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
Why do you say that? May could just have equally (and probably more likely) lost those seats due to social care...
Many of the seats with the largest swings against the Conservatives (London in particular) were where there were the biggest Remain votes.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the Conservatives increased their vote share most in places where the Leave vote was greatest.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
Whose is the quote?
By outlasting I assume you date Austria Hungary from about 1867- which is fair enough on the one hand. I was more meaning a series of cobbled together territories made by fortuitous marriages and inheritances combined with a bit of frontier warfare over several centuries to create a patchwork hotch potch that eventually fell apart because not enough people bought in to it. If democracy had been allowed it would've vanished much sooner I am sure- but that's one of those things we will never know because it didn't.
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim jong un method. Or Tito etc.
While the EU is more likely to break apart than to become a nation state, it's worth remembering that lots of countries were political units before they became nation states. And they didn't require Tito or Kim Jong, but simply lots and lots of time.
Switzerland, for example, with its different religions and languages, was very far from a nation state even as recently as 1800. But by 1900, it certainly looked like one.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
I think that is correct.
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
Why do you say that? May could just have equally (and probably more likely) lost those seats due to social care...
Many of the seats with the largest swings against the Conservatives (London in particular) were where there were the biggest Remain votes.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the Conservatives increased their vote share most in places where the Leave vote was greatest.
This is true, but I think it would be wrong to attribute all moves to Brexit, especially as post election studies have shown that there wasn't one way traffic of voters between parties according to Brexit... and of course the fact that Labour wasn't advocating stopping Brexit and was pursuing a course similar to that of the Conservatives just using different terminology.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
One could argue that the USA was created on stolen land by immigrants. No history, culture or divisive customs. To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim joun un method. Or Tito etc.
An interesting theory, but:
1) the EU isn't becoming a nation state 2) outside the UK, the EU itself is reasonably popular in the rest of the EU, and apparently getting more so in many member states if recent polling is to be believed and 3) the UK itself is a pretty good example of how a state can be imposed top down with considerable success.
I would take issue with (1) - ever closer union is written into the treaties and that's certainly where Verhofstadht would like to take it. The only matter up for debate is how quickly.
I suspect (2) is very tepid, most member state electorates back their own Governments against Brussels and I suspect turnout in the 2019 EU elections to be at its usual derisory levels.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
I think that is correct.
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
Why do you say that? May could just have equally (and probably more likely) lost those seats due to social care...
Many of the seats with the largest swings against the Conservatives (London in particular) were where there were the biggest Remain votes.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the Conservatives increased their vote share most in places where the Leave vote was greatest.
This is true, but I think it would be wrong to attribute all moves to Brexit, especially as post election studies have shown that there wasn't one way traffic of voters between parties according to Brexit... and of course the fact that Labour wasn't advocating stopping Brexit and was pursuing a course similar to that of the Conservatives just using different terminology.
Of course, Brexit is hardly the be-all-and-end-all, except possibly on this board. Nevertheless, I do think it noteworthy that the Conservatives did least well in the most Remain-y parts of the country.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
She really screwed the Tories, history shows once a party starts losing net seats, it's only downhill from there.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
That is why she has really pissed me off. She faced a critical period for the UK with a modest but a solid majority and she completely screwed it up against someone who made Kinnock look Prime Ministerial and numerate. And we will all end up paying a price for her stupid arrogance. As Mike says, it is truly extraordinary that she is still there. Incompetence and ineptitude on this scale should not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.
The best interests of the Tory party are the best interests of the country.
More often than not I would agree with that. At the moment I am not so sure. Even although I think George is being a bit self indulgent he is simply telling it as it is. The rest of the cabinet needs to get a grip and get rid.
If George has an alternative suggestion, we're all ears.
In the meantime, I'll assume he's still acting in the character he's been accustomed to for at least the last 6 years and is "plotting the downfall of his enemies", as he reportedly said he would devote himself to doing last year.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
I think that is correct.
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
Why do you say that? May could just have equally (and probably more likely) lost those seats due to social care...
Many of the seats with the largest swings against the Conservatives (London in particular) were where there were the biggest Remain votes.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the Conservatives increased their vote share most in places where the Leave vote was greatest.
This is true, but I think it would be wrong to attribute all moves to Brexit, especially as post election studies have shown that there wasn't one way traffic of voters between parties according to Brexit... and of course the fact that Labour wasn't advocating stopping Brexit and was pursuing a course similar to that of the Conservatives just using different terminology.
Of course, Brexit is hardly the be-all-and-end-all, except possibly on this board.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
Sod the Tories, she really screwed the country. Hague was really interesting on this on R5 yesterday. He had absolutely no doubt that we would get a worse deal from Brexit because the government is weak; that we would end up paying more and that the deal would be softer (which, as a remainer, he did not seem to think was in the UK's interests).
I think that is correct.
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
Why do you say that? May could just have equally (and probably more likely) lost those seats due to social care...
Many of the seats with the largest swings against the Conservatives (London in particular) were where there were the biggest Remain votes.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the Conservatives increased their vote share most in places where the Leave vote was greatest.
This is true, but I think it would be wrong to attribute all moves to Brexit, especially as post election studies have shown that there wasn't one way traffic of voters between parties according to Brexit... and of course the fact that Labour wasn't advocating stopping Brexit and was pursuing a course similar to that of the Conservatives just using different terminology.
Of course, Brexit is hardly the be-all-and-end-all, except possibly on this board. Nevertheless, I do think it noteworthy that the Conservatives did least well in the most Remain-y parts of the country.
Brexit will have played a role, but worth remembering that 2015 was a bad year for the Conservatives in London (aside from Lib Dem seats) given the changing demographics. I'm hoping that by the time of the next election we will have moved beyond Leavers and Remainers - this sectarianism isn't healthy.
I've noticed a few people attribute the referendum or election result to whatever topic is currently in the news/suits their current debating position.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
The EU has already outlasted Austria-Hungary and there isn't much evidence of force being needed to prevent any Brexit domino effect.
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
“The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, he wanted the Commission to be the Executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No.”
It's rather interesting, in a somewhat wonkish way. In particular, take a look at pages 13 to 15. The UK wants more mutual recognition of professional qualifications than the EU does, and wants grandfathered permissions to apply across all EU27 states. This is interesting because it's relevant to the selling of professional services into the EU.
Dont be silly, that would that require joining a club who want to be part of europe, managed by a European and mostly staffed by foreigners who keep the British talent out of the team.
This is an absurd thread header. You could equally say May's GE2017 campaign was the first to see a Tory voteshare over 40% since John Major's historic 1992 campaign. On the basis of net seat gains you would say Hague's 2001 result was better than Thatcher's 1987 campaign because he gained 1 seat net and she lost a few compared to 1983 despite his losing by over 150 seats and she winning by over 100. Absolutely ridiculous.
In any case May is still there because not only are the Tories still roughly tied with Labour in the polls but as last month's Survation showed no alternative Tory leader would do better against Corbyn than May except Boris by 0.1%
Comments
If people think Brexit is going to be a disaster and that we will have to return to the EU with our tail between our legs the best strategy is simple.... just be silent and wait, let it happen on its own accord. Insulting leave voters and cheering whenever the UK suffers a setback in negotiations doesn't create converts to the cause, it strengthens the resolve of brexiteers and sows further division. You want people to sheepishly say "you were right" and then follow your original advice? Just sit still and wait for it all to unfold, and if it turns out you were wrong then you can be pleasantly surprised.
TLDR; No one says thank you to arseholes who constantly try to rub their noses in it. Just wait it out if you have the courage of your convictions.
You don't need to convince people they got it wrong when the context in which they made the decision is no longer relevant. They won't be sheepishly saying "you were right" to Remainers; they will be angrily saying "you were wrong" to Brexiteers.
Downhill = More seat losses until they are out of power.
The Tories only need to lose around 10-15 seats and a Rainbow coalition becomes viable.
https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/903247466413350912
That is why she has really pissed me off. She faced a critical period for the UK with a modest but a solid majority and she completely screwed it up against someone who made Kinnock look Prime Ministerial and numerate. And we will all end up paying a price for her stupid arrogance. As Mike says, it is truly extraordinary that she is still there. Incompetence and ineptitude on this scale should not be tolerated, let alone rewarded.
Furthermore, if you're constantly complaining then people are far less likely to listen to you when you need to highlight something of real importance. Useful lesson for all aspects of life, not just brexit chat...
I'm coming to conclusion that Andrea Leadsom should have won last year.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/903252790243467264
I don't think Brexit is going to be a slam dunk but I thought it was a risk worth taking, especially as at some point we were either going to have to embrace federalism and the euro or take a more detached position. To a certain point my vote to leave was a preemptive one, assuming that leaving in 10, 15, or 20 years would be even more difficult than leaving now.
As regards Brexit, who knows what they would do? Cancelling it is unlikely to be an option, and in any case McDonnell and Corbyn don't want to cancel it.
Criticism of May is valid, but it should be recognised that she's still dealing with the Tories enduring unpopularity that's kept them to one small majority in 20 years
She responded with a straight "Yes."
Firstly, she'd not said it before; secondly it was an unequivocal answer to a direct question by a Prime Minister who often avoids and deflects with pre-planned soundbites, not always relevant to the inquiry.
Then I was left wondering, what choice did she have? At some point the Prime Minister had to put this question to bed. With reports, perhaps "fake news," suggesting she'd set a date to resign - it was time to take a position.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/903259653727023104
But, it was probably inevitable. With only 52 per cent wanting to Brexit, the truth is that the Brexiteers position is weak. The Bremainers position is weaker.
May lost seats (especially in London & the South) because Tory Bremainers did not want leave.
There is no good option once a country breaks almost 50:50.
In olden times, after 5 years of Civil War, one side would have emerged victorious. Instead, we'll probably have 50 years of wrangling about Europe, unable either to finally leave or to properly participate (i.e., the worst of all worlds).
As the incumbent PM she has more stick-ability than a leader of the opposition.
Her tenure at the top is so far very short and at the time of the election with no overall majority the PM has breathing space from serious internal strife, assuming the party wants to retain power.
Around the time of the election was the best time to challenge. The time needed negotiating a deal with DUP saved her there
It isn't the best time to take on the top job, unless you have a substantial teflon coating it will be hard to escape lumps of detritus and effluent from the Brexit shenanigans adhering to you with permanence.
Would be successors recognise that the ideal time for a coup is late 2019 or 2020. Gives them a up to couple of years in No 10 to build a reputation, brand and image as prime-ministerial.
They need time to learn how to fight JC and his style of campaign (is a hard task) and politics presented from his perspective.
From a historic viewpoint in the party you don't want to be seen as the one with blood on your hands as you slip the knife back into your pocket. You may not win.
None of the potential challengers were in a challenge and campaign ready mode after the election, as the polls had indicated (for most of the time) a Tory landslide, so the assumption was a popular and successful leader, not one who needed challenging after the election.
The contrast with the birth of the USA is enormous. They spent a few months in about 1787 thrashing out states' rights vs the centre and it's held ever since, though they fudged slavery as an issue and it nearly cost them their unity 75 odd years later. At least they were building on one language, legal system, and a common history, including in arms together.
How does the EU achieve something like that with democratic consent? Nobody with real clout like a Merkel has actually proposed just that with a 10 year deadline or whatever. It's all, salami slice here, nudge there, don't look at what the left hand is doing under the table look at the right one, and vote against integration and you have to do it again because nothing can stand in the way of the Project. It's cobbled together because they are scared of actually having their 1787 moment and finding out people don't actually want it. Hence the stealth.
Beyond that I just can't see how you have a functioning democracy which can correct errors, and media to hold it to account, and a legal system to glue it together in a world of 25 or so competing languages and no universal lingua francs. It's Austria Hungary all over, created on the hoof, only superficially having much in common, and eventually only held together by threat of force.
This is the media trying to manufacture a story. What else was she to say?
"I believe that a Prime Minister should want to achieve things and not just squat in office. I have an important job to do leading the country through Brexit and for now I'm focussed on that. If I feel that I have a further contribution to make at the end of that process and the country wishes me to continue, then I will seek to make that contribution."
Theresa May excels in that kind of waffle. It's surprising that she didn't offer it on this occasion.
To make the EU a nation state, 27 states with fiercely proud indigenous populations, variable cultures, religions and languages need to bury a millennium or two of history and all play nicely together.
The only way it can happen long term is the Kim jong un method. Or Tito etc.
In fact I'm quite surprised they're in such poor financial health seeing as they have ~ 2000 members per seat, a number Labour are at just over half of.
With a relatively huge membership, it must take some piss poor financial planning to attain a negative net worth.
1) the EU isn't becoming a nation state
2) outside the UK, the EU itself is reasonably popular in the rest of the EU, and apparently getting more so in many member states if recent polling is to be believed and
3) the UK itself is a pretty good example of how a state can be imposed top down with considerable success.
This is a very cool video btw http://www.viralforest.com/watch-1000-years-european-borders-change/
Malc's probably penning his reply to you with his sgian dubh as we speak!
She did it so consistently in the general election campaign...
Approx!
Personally, I'd go from when Edward I crushed Llewellyn, but there we are.
Mr. rkrkrk, and was constantly criticised (fairly) for not answering questions.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/903277062261235714
As someone who did more than most to advance our level of European integration put it:
"The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
"We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates."
The EU is what it is. It may not be perfect, but if it didn't exit we'd invent something that looked very similar to what we have.
I almost always prefer straight answers - but even I can see that sometimes the best thing is to lie or obfuscate.
Whether this was one of those times I don't know. But having so uncharacteristically given a straight answer to such a juicy question - we/she can hardly be surprised that it is news.
Possibly, as others speculated, she intended it to be news.
I suspect - and I could be wrong - that the Conservatives increased their vote share most in places where the Leave vote was greatest.
Also, shot or loosed. It's a pet hate of mine and a mistake I sometimes make myself. There's no fire involved in an arrow being shot.
By outlasting I assume you date Austria Hungary from about 1867- which is fair enough on the one hand. I was more meaning a series of cobbled together territories made by fortuitous marriages and inheritances combined with a bit of frontier warfare over several centuries to create a patchwork hotch potch that eventually fell apart because not enough people bought in to it. If democracy had been allowed it would've vanished much sooner I am sure- but that's one of those things we will never know because it didn't.
I'm assuming it was one of those weapons grade arrow firing things.
Switzerland, for example, with its different religions and languages, was very far from a nation state even as recently as 1800. But by 1900, it certainly looked like one.
I'll get my coat.....
.... the modern equivalent of ballista?
er, the single market is a free trade market. World's biggest surely. Why are we leaving? So we don't have to wait for the EU to do a deal with Japan.
Oh wait...
This really isn't hard.
I suspect (2) is very tepid, most member state electorates back their own Governments against Brussels and I suspect turnout in the 2019 EU elections to be at its usual derisory levels.
In the meantime, I'll assume he's still acting in the character he's been accustomed to for at least the last 6 years and is "plotting the downfall of his enemies", as he reportedly said he would devote himself to doing last year.
I've noticed a few people attribute the referendum or election result to whatever topic is currently in the news/suits their current debating position.
If so the arrow isn't an arrow, it's a bolt or quarrel.
“The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, he wanted the Commission to be the Executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/641334/2017-08-30_-_EU_UK_Comparison_Table_CR_AUGUST_day_2_FINAL_AGREED_VERSION_AGREED_with_Cion_V2.2.pdf
It's rather interesting, in a somewhat wonkish way. In particular, take a look at pages 13 to 15. The UK wants more mutual recognition of professional qualifications than the EU does, and wants grandfathered permissions to apply across all EU27 states. This is interesting because it's relevant to the selling of professional services into the EU.
In any case May is still there because not only are the Tories still roughly tied with Labour in the polls but as last month's Survation showed no alternative Tory leader would do better against Corbyn than May except Boris by 0.1%