Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » May’s comments on retirement are more about 2019 than 2022
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » May’s comments on retirement are more about 2019 than 2022
Theresa May might be on the other side of the world but she can no doubt still hear the cacophony of silence from her cabinet colleagues in support of her comment stating her desire to lead the Conservatives into the next election. As so often, what is not said is more revealing than what is.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That said,I'd want to be put of potential swatting distance...
Second like Theresa May's chance.Third like Theresa May's rate
This is the conundrum for the EU. It needs membership to be seen as valuable so countries want to join and stay but if countries can't or won't be members it also wants them to be part of their system. They haven't really addressed this issue AFAICT
I think they genuinely don't believe that we are leaving. Either this is shock or hubris - I suspect the former. That would account for Merkel's strangely detached attitude and unwillingness to confront the Commission over their bungling.
It's very damaging to everybody, but there we are.
Mr. 43, interesting set of tweets.
F1: intriguing to see how close Ferrari can get, but I still think this is a Mercedes circuit. Also, small chance of a Force India podium, perhaps.
Isn't this plain hypocricy from the silent Tory cabinet ministers? When she made the decision to call an election they were queing up to explain why it was vital in the light of Brexit etc.
Now that the decision has been shown to have been a bad one she's on her own. Who'd want to find themselves in the trenches with this lot.
Hammond is behaving as though he really has come round to Remain, but May isn't. She clearly does want to withdraw and the more the EU behave the way they are at present, the more intransigent she will become.
On the header, I have no doubt the government will blame the EU for the downsides of Brexit. The two issues with this approach are firstly that blame isn't a substitute for success. The Conservatives own Brexit and would want it to be seen as a success. The other issue is that the government will also want an ongoing relationship with the EU. It will have to sell that proposition both to a public while simultaneously denigrating that organisation, and to the EU itself who owe no favours to the government that is badmouthing them.
Which is potentially far more damaging to May, as although there are fewer of them they just happen to dominate the cabinet, including the Treasury.
I'll assume that you don't mean what you say in the second part. I am sure you do not actually think that there is no obvious reason why Merkel should be worried that the Commission couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel.
(It was in the middle of a long and tedious speech on taxes. North had asked to be woken when it got to modern times.)
I do agree with the view on May. No question in my mind her 'support' for remain was just trying to guess the direction of the wind. And got it wrong, but weirdly it sort of worked out for her. Sort of being the operative.
The two sides are mirror images of each other. The ones I have sympathy with are the tens of milllions who will suffer as a result of the mutual intransigence, not the true believers.
The reason I am criticising the EU is because their approach has been unbelievably stupid and naive, not because I want us to crash out with no deal (I really can't understand why anyone would wish us to do that, in any case).
I am at a complete loss that Barnier's team appear unable to see that - I would have thought it would have been obvious to anyone of average intelligence - but they clearly are. Or alternatively, they are deliberately wrecking talks.
Mr. Doethur, I agree, but it's also worth mentioning the media hasn't actually raised the point once, so far as I can see.
I'm not convinced that the EU negotiators are quite that emotionally detached.
This is where my point on shock comes in - I think they still can't get their heads round the fact that some people don't see the EU as an unalloyed good. That others have gone beyond my position of a flawed positive and see it as actually evil is still more incomprehensible to them. They are behaving as though everyone will change their minds given time, and simply cannot see that the way they're behaving is merely likely to harden attitudes.
Did they eventually not penalise some drivers, or did they just hand the positions out at random?
As for Corbyn, I've repeatedly said on here that I'm not a fan. And I stand by that. However, where his manifesto sat was much closer to my views than say, the Miliband manifesto. And for that reason Labour got my vote in 2017.
Could affect the title race if they did that, and that'd not go down well with partisans of the negatively affected contender, (neutrals likewise).
Mr. Monksfield, how do you rationalise the EU's position that the Irish border settlement must precede a trade agreement?
Which in itself would be remarkaby stupid.
If the downturn is severe and the Tories make the wrong choice (almost inevitable) It's by no means impossible to see a scenario with a Labour landslide of Blair-like proportions.
While I'm more certain by the month that Brexit will be an epochal socioeconomic disaster for the UK it may very well turn out to be a narrowly popular one. The evidence mounts the core of the Leaver vote will blame the EU for leaving the EU being ****. It is after all a strategy that's worked since 1975 so I should be less surprised.
The two overlapping but distinct strategies for Remainers now are ( a) delay. ( b ) turning the populist mob backlash in the lying Charlatans of the Leave campaign not the EU. I'm more hopeful about the former than the later.
However as the disaster unfolds it's perfectly possible to hold together a core europhile vote much higher than quit's in 1975. This is after all an intergenerational struggle. The intergenerational problem for British Europhiles is we've been terminally reasonable. The experience of having stood against this fiasco and Beng subsequently vindicated could form an angry but iron core. If Leave has taught us anything it's that Identity is powerful stuff.
In the meantime just keep buggering on as the Great European said and whisper in the electorate's ear " They don't know what they are doing. We don't have to go through with it. "
It is our side that has ruled out Customs Union or remaining in the Single Market and is now crying unfair at their own decision.
You may not like Barnier or Juncker, but we do not get to choose who the other side consists of. The EU have done a hell of a lot of back room preparations, while our side started this summer, 12 months later. The EU27 have a carefully worked out position and are surprised that our side expects them to wing it.
May is a numpty who has let the lunatics take over the asylum. It is not the EU27 's fault if it all is a shambles lashed together at the last moment.
"There is also an emerging consensus among the party’s power brokers on both left and right that the next leader should be a woman..."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/08/labour-s-new-brexit-policy-finally-offers-remainers-glimmer-hope
Thornberry? She is 2nd fav to Keir Starmer.
Dr. Foxinsox, carefully thought out, yet utterly contradictory when it comes to the border/trade.
I've no objection to them offering a deal that doesn't match what we had before. That's not only fair enough but inevitable, or there would be no point in being a member. But when you look at it with a cold eye, it's not a deal they want but preferential treatment for themselves in Britain - in effect, forcing us to take all the rubbish of the EU (the bills, the courts, the political system) without the trading rights that are the only thing that make it worth having. And then they seem not to get why this is not being exactly well received. Of course, the British position is the precise opposite, but actually we're not currently asking for anything much beyond the Canadian deal and offering a great deal more for it.
That's nothing to do with a prism and everything to do with reality. As Alistair says, they seem not to have thought through what effect it will have on relations with a country right next door that is crucial to their financial and military security. Therefore it is stupid and naive.
This is a government like the 92 Major one, adrift and infighting. Blair won by 200 seats, but even a less media friendly sort would have had a safe working majority.
I look forward to Jezza taking over from this ship of fools.
I can absolutely see why a lefty might want Cooper or Umunna or suchlike to be PM rather than May. But Corbyn? He's far left. Happy to march beside hammer and sickle flags. And he's a unilateralist.
I cannot fathom why seemingly reasonable leftwingers are suddenly comfortable with the likes of Corbyn.
Of course the DUP may not like it, but it is a viable resolution.
EDIT more precisely, it wouldn't be a nightmare for most of their voters.
In practice, I think he is too disorganised to be malignant.
As for the "strangely detached attitude", Europe sees us as the eccentric cousin who wants to go and live on Holy Island. It's regrettable but ultimately his choice and not the first order of business. Merkel has an election to fight and other immediate priorities. It's a fundamental British error to think that everyone is talking about us - they think we're barmy but marginal. Ultimately it's something delegated to the Commission to sort out and they'll have a look at the result next year.
And, to quote Emperor Palpatine: Oh, no. I think you will find that it is you who are mistaken.
It's an extraordinary thing when you think of the damage the EU has done to the Tory Party over the decades and it's easy to see as this chapter closes that the best has been saved for last. They don't need a Blair. Just being something less barking than the Tories will do.
The F2 qualifying session was a rainy mess, P3 could be completely washed out.
Customs Union would be fine, no need for full single market.
Since we don't have a presidential system, I will vote for the party not the leader; it's the policies that count.
Monza is currently underwater, the F2 qualy session was a washout and F1 P3 could well be the same...
Mr. Pointer, Labour leaders in the past (tuition fees, income tax, Lisbon referendum) have happily thrown away manifesto pledges after winning a majority. Trusting Corbyn would be, I fear, a very serious mistake.
Mr. Herdson, true, although the Emperor's plan itself was fine, the problem was that his troops were so incompetent they were defeated by a gang of pygmy teddy bears.
Mr. Doethur, Corbyn's won two leadership elections and now even those who signed a no confidence motion have resumed their traditional sheep-like loyalty.
The problem is that there is no serious plan behind his ideas and likeable as he is, he doesn't have the temprement to be PM.
But what worries me is not a Corbyn government, it is what happens after a Corbyn government.
Now I have no objection to them putting these forward. Their job is to get the best deal they can. But to do that, refuse to discuss pertinent, closely related issues that will clearly affect them and criticise the other side for being delusional and wanting to have its cake and eat it - well, all I can say is that I think their behaviour is making hem look ridiculous. If the consequences were not so very serious and alarming it would be funnier than the time Theresa May's 'strong and stable' van was blown over..
But suppose you are right about Corbyn. How did Labour get 40 per cent if every voter in the land saw what you saw -- which given the roasting he got in the press, most of them did?
We must conclude that the public thought these things irrelevant: Corbyn may be unilateralist but Labour policy is not, so it does not matter. Or they might agree Hamas is terrible but also see the Saudis execute hundreds of people and are bombing Yemen into the stone age, and Theresa May's not condemned it, so that Middle East politics is netted off. Or they might take your negatives as positives -- Germany and Spain aren't clamouring for nuclear weapons so perhaps we don't need them, these voters might say.
Because if you do not do this sort of analysis, you must conclude that nearly half the country is stupid, evil, or has been bribed. And yes, some activists for other parties might take the same view of your lot's voters, but it does not really get us anywhere.
I've not long come back from a glorious 10 days in a little Algarve resort, right next to the Spanish border. Not very touristy, but lots of Portuguese having their 2 weeks away from work, and a smattering of EU expats. Our first time on a foreign holiday of any length without at least one of the lads with us, and it was strange not having to entertain them or find a water park or an amusement park.
We used Air BnB and rented a small house with a private pool, and my wife spent afternoons baking in the sun, while I get bored and went exploring alone.
Most afternoons, I ended up at a bar run by an Israeli guy and his Dutch wife, helped by an English barman, Portuguese chef, Polish waitress and various family members.
No one mentioned Brexit. Not the staff, Portuguese I talked to, or any of the expats of various nations who I got to know over a few drinks. I eventually brought Brexit up, and it sparked a lively debate.
To cut a long story short, given the constraints of how many different languages were being spoken, I didn't detect any great love for the EU. Most of the Portuguese liked the EU a lot. There was a feeling that it was better to be in it than out of it, but pretty much everyone thought it was flawed and wanted some type of reform. A few of them, the Dutch bar owner, a German soldier and Polish waitress thought we were right to vote out, as they weren't keen on the political aspect, but most, including a couple of Brits understood why we voted out thought we were making a short term error but we'd be ok in the end as both the EU and Britain need each other.
The Dutch bar owner summed it up by saying "If you make it hard for the Brits to come to the Algarve, you will have to fucking close the Algarve!"
In summary, the EU citizens I met couldn't give a flying fuck about Brexit, but wanted it to work for all our sakes.
Thank you all for your company and insights over the summer, I have enjoyed the discussions very much. I hope they stay classy as ever in future.
Da boch.
The first part is true. The second is, in its own way, delusional. Britain's departure was not inevitable. How the EU developed, how it behaved towards Britain (and other member states) and how it dealt with Britain over the deal negotiations did have something to do with Britain's departure. The failure of the EU to recognise this, to show even the slightest inkling of understanding that when a member leaves after over 40 years experience, some self-reflection on whether you might, could or should have done things differently to keep them on board, especially given the closeness of the result, is one reason perhaps why relations aren't now as good as they could be.
While it is true that Britain cannot ignore Continental Europe, the reverse is also true. It would help now if the EU recognised this. They too are ignoring the lessons of history.
The other point that might be made is that, in wanting a clean break, the EU is ignoring the express words of its own Article 50. Still, it is not the first time that it has ignored its own rules when convenient, ironically one of the reasons Britain has found the organisation do maddening at times.
Still, we are where we are and the government should be making urgent plans for a hard WTO departure with all that that will entail.
Session clock will start with a red flag waving.
Indeed, if it goes badly the Labour government could spend five years simply firefighting.