Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
I think this is unfortunately true. In October we are going to be told we have not made sufficient progress (because we have not got the cheque book out) to discuss the important stuff about the future. We need to be in a position to treat that with some equanimity and, perhaps, a Gallic shrug. Only if we are in a position to do that is there any hope of a sensible deal.
Anyway, on a personal note - I am going away for the weekend to see my father and try to get some family stuff sorted. So I won't be back on the threads today or tomorrow. With school resuming on Monday I doubt if I will have time to post for the next few weeks. So I am saying goodbye for the present, I hope temporarily. With a new member of staff arriving my timetable has gone from the ridiculous to the bearable, so with luck I won't have any repeat of the health problems that made me so grumpy towards the end of last year and that may allow me more time for other interests. However, it's still a lot of work and I don't know when I'll be back.
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.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Anyway, on a personal note - I am going away for the weekend to see my father and try to get some family stuff sorted. So I won't be back on the threads today or tomorrow. With school resuming on Monday I doubt if I will have time to post for the next few weeks. So I am saying goodbye for the present, I hope temporarily. With a new member of staff arriving my timetable has gone from the ridiculous to the bearable, so with luck I won't have any repeat of the health problems that made me so grumpy towards the end of last year and that may allow me more time for other interests. However, it's still a lot of work and I don't know when I'll be back.
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.
PB is surely made for staff rooms and the odd free period. Don't be a stranger, your posts have been very interesting and thought provoking.
Anecdote alert! 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.
I had a long talk with a Welsh Govt civil servant a couple of weeks back who said automotive people were concerned for sure, but that the rest of their (hundreds I'd guess) of manufacturing contacts in S Wales were just not concerned, and were far more interested (positively) in the removal of the Severn tolls which will knit the whole area with Bristol far better. However, as it was put to me the "political masters in Cardiff don't want to hear this".
I deal with foreign customers and suppliers daily. It's been mentioned twice in 14 months. Once in the context of a business dinner with some Belgians who agreed whatever happened "people like us will still do business" (their words), and once in the context (also Belgian as it happens) that Brexit was less bad than Wales knocking them out of the Euros.
Anecdote alert! 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.
The deeper truth is that 90% of people don't have strong political opinions. It is a minority pursuit everywhere.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
It isn't popular with every part of the Conservative base though. And it is perfectly possible to alienate Brexit supporters by not brexiting in line with their particular desired Brexit.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
Ah, there we disagree. While one can always argue with details (I find Juncker's dislike of new initiatives tiresome), I'm broadly happy with the direction of EU policy, and think that Britain's departure was the result not of bad EU policy but of Cameron's preoccupation with appeasing a minority of his party coupled with an openly malevolent press. The EU think we've done something odd for domestic reasons, and they're largely right.
And while I'm not a Leave voter (and indeed would rather be governed by Barnier or even Juncker than by, say, Boris), I doubt if many Leave voters would really point to EU policies as the reason they voted for it - it was far more a gut reaction: "My life is a bit crap, the EU hasn't done anything much for me, maybe leaving would enable us to sort things out." Short of some massive Marshall Aid programme for the UK, I don't think the EU could have done much to change that.
Anyway, on a personal note - I am going away for the weekend to see my father and try to get some family stuff sorted. So I won't be back on the threads today or tomorrow. With school resuming on Monday I doubt if I will have time to post for the next few weeks. So I am saying goodbye for the present, I hope temporarily. With a new member of staff arriving my timetable has gone from the ridiculous to the bearable, so with luck I won't have any repeat of the health problems that made me so grumpy towards the end of last year and that may allow me more time for other interests. However, it's still a lot of work and I don't know when I'll be back.
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.
Good luck with the new term, and thanks for taking part here. Welcome back in due course! Few stay away forever - even SeanT pops up now and then to tell us he's definitely leaving .
Mr. L, Labour's vote was due to: 1) Better campaign by Corbyn 2) Corbynistas 3) Labour tribal loyalty 4) Anti-Conservative/Anti-hard departure from the EU tactical voting 5) Collapse of UKIP, to the (primary) benefit of Labour
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
What has damaged the Conservatives was their shift from supporting aspiration to defending privilege.
The robbing of the young to subsidise the old in policies involving tuition fees, debt, housing and pensions.
Having greater control of immigration would somewhat rebalance this failure.
Mr Dancer, P3 is looking like being abandoned completely, the rain looks set in and the track is covered in standing water.
Unlike the practice sessions it’s possible to delay the qualifying session if it looks like the weather will be more suitable later in the day. You’ll remember that in the USA a couple of years ago they did the qualy session on Sunday morning after Saturday was completely washed out.
Mr. L, Labour's vote was due to: 1) Better campaign by Corbyn 2) Corbynistas 3) Labour tribal loyalty 4) Anti-Conservative/Anti-hard departure from the EU tactical voting 5) Collapse of UKIP, to the (primary) benefit of Labour
Mr. Sandpit, hope qualifying isn't affected.
On 5, I think polling evidence is fairly clear that the collapse of UKIP benefited the Tories most. It just didn't benefit them as overwhelmingly as expected (some here used to just add up Con+UKIP to suggest a solid right-wing vote).
I'd replace that one by 5) Labour's programme. It actually cut through - people saw some positive stuff that would improve their lives. They didn't necessarily feel it would all work perfectly, nothing ever does, but here was a party talking about things that mattered to them.
Up to the election, we seemed from media reports to be only talking about migrants and benefit recipients, so most people weren't interested - the fact that we were concerned about tuition fees, making very explicit NHS commitments, raising the minimum wage further, sorting out the privatised train mess and the like was welcome news.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
What has damaged the Conservatives was their shift from supporting aspiration to defending privilege.
The robbing of the young to subsidise the old in policies involving tuition fees, debt, housing and pensions.
Having greater control of immigration would somewhat rebalance this failure.
Indeed.
Apart from on here I hear literally no criticisms of the way Brexit is being pursued.
On the doorsteps I hear lots about housing, pay rises (lack thereof) etc.
On another subject, does anyone with knowledge of the Kenyan situation have a view on the Supreme Court decision? It seems to fit oddly with the approval by international observers of the outcome, but with some grumbling it seems to be being accepted by Kenyatta (who seems to be behaving very well). Is there good reason to think there was indeed something substantially wrong with the election?
Anyway, on a personal note - I am going away for the weekend to see my father and try to get some family stuff sorted. So I won't be back on the threads today or tomorrow. With school resuming on Monday I doubt if I will have time to post for the next few weeks. So I am saying goodbye for the present, I hope temporarily. With a new member of staff arriving my timetable has gone from the ridiculous to the bearable, so with luck I won't have any repeat of the health problems that made me so grumpy towards the end of last year and that may allow me more time for other interests. However, it's still a lot of work and I don't know when I'll be back.
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.
PB is surely made for staff rooms and the odd free period. Don't be a stranger, your posts have been very interesting and thought provoking.
Mr. L, Labour's vote was due to: 1) Better campaign by Corbyn 2) Corbynistas 3) Labour tribal loyalty 4) Anti-Conservative/Anti-hard departure from the EU tactical voting 5) Collapse of UKIP, to the (primary) benefit of Labour
Mr. Sandpit, hope qualifying isn't affected.
On 5, I think polling evidence is fairly clear that the collapse of UKIP benefited the Tories most. It just didn't benefit them as overwhelmingly as expected (some here used to just add up Con+UKIP to suggest a solid right-wing vote).
I'd replace that one by 5) Labour's programme. It actually cut through - people saw some positive stuff that would improve their lives. They didn't necessarily feel it would all work perfectly, nothing ever does, but here was a party talking about things that mattered to them.
Up to the election, we seemed from media reports to be only talking about migrants and benefit recipients, so most people weren't interested - the fact that we were concerned about tuition fees, making very explicit NHS commitments, raisin gthe minimum wage further, sorting out the pivatised train mess and the like was welcome news.
Can we add 6. May's appearance of entitlement, including failing to turn up to debates. I have heard anecdotally that for some that was the point they changed their votes.
Ironically, given what happened to him, Tim Farron, had the line of the campaign:
"How dare you call a snap election, and then not turn up to debate the issues."
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
It isn't popular with every part of the Conservative base though. And it is perfectly possible to alienate Brexit supporters by not brexiting in line with their particular desired Brexit.
Topping (who campaigned for the Tories in Ealing Central & Acton) gave a very interesting post-poll narrative of his experiences: Brexit and the campaign seem to have repelled many prosperous life-long Tories, and as a result one of the most marginal Labour seats (maj 274), which I fully expected the Tories to win, was held by Labour with a majority of 13,800. The notable thing about the local campaign was that the Tory candidate was an unapologetic supporter of Brexit, while the MP, Rupa Huq, had voted against triggering Article 50.
Mr. Sandpit, don't recall the US situation but do recall the same thing happening in Japan once (I was pissed off, I think I'd gotten up at about half five to walk the dog then watch it live only for it not to be on).
Mr. Palmer, might the circle not be squared in that the voting itself was fine but there was hacking of electronic systems and other such shenanigans after the voting in-person occurred?
Yet more evidence, were it needed, that electronic voting is bloody 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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
What has damaged the Conservatives was their shift from supporting aspiration to defending privilege.
The robbing of the young to subsidise the old in policies involving tuition fees, debt, housing and pensions.
Having greater control of immigration would somewhat rebalance this failure.
Indeed.
Apart from on here I hear literally no criticisms of the way Brexit is being pursued.
On the doorsteps I hear lots about housing, pay rises (lack thereof) etc.
Housing and the NHS will most likely sink the Tories next time, if Brexit mess doesn't.
F1 - session will start at 10.46, so a 14 minute window to run in the rain. Track is sodden and the wet stuff is still falling from the sky, don’t be surprised if someone bins it on one of the many rivers.
Mr. Sandpit, don't recall the US situation but do recall the same thing happening in Japan once (I was pissed off, I think I'd gotten up at about half five to walk the dog then watch it live only for it not to be on).
Mr. Palmer, might the circle not be squared in that the voting itself was fine but there was hacking of electronic systems and other such shenanigans after the voting in-person occurred?
Yet more evidence, were it needed, that electronic voting is bloody stupid.
There’s pretty much a universal opinion in the IT community that the best way to run elections is using paper, pencils and teams of human counters - as we do in the UK. The only useful addition might be an ink marking of the finger as they do in India, to prevent repeat voting.
Any electronic system fails on one or more of hackability, integrity of the secret ballot or anonymous audit trail of votes cast.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
Give us a break! What should the EU have done? Demanded a retraction every time the Sun wrote about square bananas or some crime committed by a Bulgarian?
We were a senior board member of this organisation not a trainee typist to whom the EU owed a duty of care.
On another subject, does anyone with knowledge of the Kenyan situation have a view on the Supreme Court decision? It seems to fit oddly with the approval by international observers of the outcome, but with some grumbling it seems to be being accepted by Kenyatta (who seems to be behaving very well). Is there good reason to think there was indeed something substantially wrong with the election?
I'd love to know more about what exactly went on, as it might feed into my long-standing hatred of electronic voting and disregard of the fools who want to bring it in.
From the little I've seen, I'm guessing the vote were reported correctly to a location, but some one / several people misreported results further up the chain. I suppose it would be a little like the presiding officer at one of our counts giving fictitious results - something that should be difficult in our system (or at least it should be if people are paying attention).
But that might be wrong - there seems precious little detail.
If that's the case, then international observers probably would not have detected it: they would have checked polling stations, seen people being able to vote freely and fairly, and not seen the shenanigans going on elsewhere.
Mr. Sandpit, don't recall the US situation but do recall the same thing happening in Japan once (I was pissed off, I think I'd gotten up at about half five to walk the dog then watch it live only for it not to be on).
Mr. Palmer, might the circle not be squared in that the voting itself was fine but there was hacking of electronic systems and other such shenanigans after the voting in-person occurred?
Yet more evidence, were it needed, that electronic voting is bloody stupid.
There’s pretty much a universal opinion in the IT community that the best way to run elections is using paper, pencils and teams of human counters - as we do in the UK. The only useful addition might be an ink marking of the finger as they do in India, to prevent repeat voting.
Any electronic system fails on one or more of hackability, integrity of the secret ballot or anonymous audit trail of votes cast.
Every vote cast can be traced back to who cast it. Each paper comes from a prenumbered book and the polling clerk then writes the indivduals polling number on the counterfoil. So in theory it can be traced. I'm not aware of an occasion on which it has ever been used in an election court though.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
Mr. L, Labour's vote was due to: 1) Better campaign by Corbyn 2) Corbynistas 3) Labour tribal loyalty 4) Anti-Conservative/Anti-hard departure from the EU tactical voting 5) Collapse of UKIP, to the (primary) benefit of Labour
Mr. Sandpit, hope qualifying isn't affected.
On 5, I think polling evidence is fairly clear that the collapse of UKIP benefited the Tories most. It just didn't benefit them as overwhelmingly as expected (some here used to just add up Con+UKIP to suggest a solid right-wing vote).
I'd replace that one by 5) Labour's programme. It actually cut through - people saw some positive stuff that would improve their lives. They didn't necessarily feel it would all work perfectly, nothing ever does, but here was a party talking about things that mattered to them.
Up to the election, we seemed from media reports to be only talking about migrants and benefit recipients, so most people weren't interested - the fact that we were concerned about tuition fees, making very explicit NHS commitments, raisin gthe minimum wage further, sorting out the pivatised train mess and the like was welcome news.
Can we add 6. May's appearance of entitlement, including failing to turn up to debates. I have heard anecdotally that for some that was the point they changed their votes.
Ironically, given what happened to him, Tim Farron, had the line of the campaign:
"How dare you call a snap election, and then not turn up to debate the issues."
Agreed. I suspect that line will feature quite prominently when the political obituaries come to be written.
F1: Toro Rossos and a Sauber in the top 3. Haven't bet on practice, but I wonder if that's a habitual occurrence with smaller teams likelier to go out if it's wet.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
I cannot see the WTO not taking place. I am becoming doubtful if the transition period will come about. All countries [ in the EU and Britain ] have "their" WTO default duties in the "computer". After all, they do deal with many countries on a WTO basis. For UK, to begin with, every country will be WTO.
Mr. Sandpit, don't recall the US situation but do recall the same thing happening in Japan once (I was pissed off, I think I'd gotten up at about half five to walk the dog then watch it live only for it not to be on).
Mr. Palmer, might the circle not be squared in that the voting itself was fine but there was hacking of electronic systems and other such shenanigans after the voting in-person occurred?
Yet more evidence, were it needed, that electronic voting is bloody stupid.
There’s pretty much a universal opinion in the IT community that the best way to run elections is using paper, pencils and teams of human counters - as we do in the UK. The only useful addition might be an ink marking of the finger as they do in India, to prevent repeat voting.
Any electronic system fails on one or more of hackability, integrity of the secret ballot or anonymous audit trail of votes cast.
Every vote cast can be traced back to who cast it. Each paper comes from a prenumbered book and the polling clerk then writes the indivduals polling number on the counterfoil. So in theory it can be traced. I'm not aware of an occasion on which it has ever been used in an election court though.
In theory that’s true, although as I understand it the sealed ballot boxes are removed from the polling station at the end of the day and taken to the counting area, whereas the marked registers are stored elsewhere and no person ever has access to both. The court is more likely to order an election be re-run than to suggest that ballot papers be matched up marked register.
F1: Toro Rossos and a Sauber in the top 3. Haven't bet on practice, but I wonder if that's a habitual occurrence with smaller teams likelier to go out if it's wet.
The two Williams cars went out at the end and went first and second. Only seven cars set a time in the session.
Absolutely pissing it down in Monza. That wasn’t in the script for this weekend!
Session clock will start with a red flag waving.
Quite unusual for Monza to be wet as well?
Yes, very unusual to be wet in Monza. It’s almost expected in UK, Belgium, Japan, Brazil, Singapore, but somewhat less so in Italy, Spain, Bahrain and Abu Dhabi.
Mr. Sandpit, could probably use the experience. The Williams is slippery and should be good in a straight line but extra downforce would be handy for wet grip.
Mr. Sandpit, is rain expected in Belgium and Singapore, particularly the latter? I'd need to check, but I can't remember it being wet in the night. There was chatter about how the floodlights reflecting on rainwater might make things tricky.
On another subject, does anyone with knowledge of the Kenyan situation have a view on the Supreme Court decision? It seems to fit oddly with the approval by international observers of the outcome, but with some grumbling it seems to be being accepted by Kenyatta (who seems to be behaving very well). Is there good reason to think there was indeed something substantially wrong with the election?
I'd love to know more about what exactly went on, as it might feed into my long-standing hatred of electronic voting and disregard of the fools who want to bring it in.
From the little I've seen, I'm guessing the vote were reported correctly to a location, but some one / several people misreported results further up the chain. I suppose it would be a little like the presiding officer at one of our counts giving fictitious results - something that should be difficult in our system (or at least it should be if people are paying attention).
But that might be wrong - there seems precious little detail.
If that's the case, then international observers probably would not have detected it: they would have checked polling stations, seen people being able to vote freely and fairly, and not seen the shenanigans going on elsewhere.
It can happen anywhere - but almost certainly does in third world countries. The Bureaucrat wants to make the Master happy and, therefore, fudges the vote by a few thousand.
My impression of the Kenyan vote was that Kenyatta actually won even if the Bureaucrats didn't poke their noses in it.
We should be careful that we do not come to a situation where a election is considered fair only if the ruling President / Party loses !
Mr. Sandpit, is rain expected in Belgium and Singapore, particularly the latter? I'd need to check, but I can't remember it being wet in the night. There was chatter about how the floodlights reflecting on rainwater might make things tricky.
Something like one in three races at Spa is affected by the rain, and it’s more often than that over the course of the weekend. Singapore is often wet, although I’m trying to remember if it’s ever rained on Sunday there. When it rains, it seriously rains in Singapore, I was there in 2013 for the race and it rained at some point almost every day for a week.
Interestingly, as they’ve kept pushing the Abu Dhabi race back so it’s now on the last weekend of November, it’s not unknown for it to rain there that weekend, it’s happened three times in the last decade.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
I think this is unfortunately true. In October we are going to be told we have not made sufficient progress (because we have not got the cheque book out) to discuss the important stuff about the future. We need to be in a position to treat that with some equanimity and, perhaps, a Gallic shrug. Only if we are in a position to do that is there any hope of a sensible deal.
It is in our DNA that we will immediately blame Johnny Foreigner. We seem to have a sense of entitlement !
Don't worry, 3 years down the line, it will be Trump/USA because, guess what, the "free" trade agreement was nowhere near finalised.
On another subject, does anyone with knowledge of the Kenyan situation have a view on the Supreme Court decision? It seems to fit oddly with the approval by international observers of the outcome, but with some grumbling it seems to be being accepted by Kenyatta (who seems to be behaving very well). Is there good reason to think there was indeed something substantially wrong with the election?
I'd love to know more about what exactly went on, as it might feed into my long-standing hatred of electronic voting and disregard of the fools who want to bring it in.
From the little I've seen, I'm guessing the vote were reported correctly to a location, but some one / several people misreported results further up the chain. I suppose it would be a little like the presiding officer at one of our counts giving fictitious results - something that should be difficult in our system (or at least it should be if people are paying attention).
But that might be wrong - there seems precious little detail.
If that's the case, then international observers probably would not have detected it: they would have checked polling stations, seen people being able to vote freely and fairly, and not seen the shenanigans going on elsewhere.
Mr. Sandpit, I believe one practice session at Abu Dhabi was once nearly affected by rain. I wonder what the drainage is like.
That’s a good question, to which I’m not sure of the answer. It certainly doesn’t rain much in the sandpit, only half a dozen days a year when there’s more than cloud-seeded drizzle. That said, the track is a no-expenses-spared modern facility and in use every day, so I’d imagine it’s not too bad at clearing water when required.
Mr. L, Labour's vote was due to: 1) Better campaign by Corbyn 2) Corbynistas 3) Labour tribal loyalty 4) Anti-Conservative/Anti-hard departure from the EU tactical voting 5) Collapse of UKIP, to the (primary) benefit of Labour
Mr. Sandpit, hope qualifying isn't affected.
On 5, I think polling evidence is fairly clear that the collapse of UKIP benefited the Tories most. It just didn't benefit them as overwhelmingly as expected (some here used to just add up Con+UKIP to suggest a solid right-wing vote).
I'd replace that one by 5) Labour's programme. It actually cut through - people saw some positive stuff that would improve their lives. They didn't necessarily feel it would all work perfectly, nothing ever does, but here was a party talking about things that mattered to them.
Up to the election, we seemed from media reports to be only talking about migrants and benefit recipients, so most people weren't interested - the fact that we were concerned about tuition fees, making very explicit NHS commitments, raising the minimum wage further, sorting out the privatised train mess and the like was welcome news.
And Corbyn could talk about issues such as student debt and unaffordable housing in a way that establishment politicians couldn't.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
What will cause protests and the government to be deposed, would be if the elites decide that they can ignore the will of the people and not implement what the largest vote in British history told them to do.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
What will cause protests and the government to be deposed, would be if the elites decide that they can ignore the will of the people and not implement what the largest vote in British history told them to do.
The largest vote of all time, in 2019, will change all that !
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
I'm a remainer, but that sounds like pure fantasy to me.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
Your metaphor is wrong in a material way. The government doesn't have to take us over a cliff, we just stand there while the timer counts down to March 19 and opens the hangman's trapdoor beneath us. Bear in mind also how major political issues which looked half-and-half decisions at the time, stop looking that way as they recede in the rear view mirror - hanging, criminalising homosexuality, fox-hunting. Politics is the art of the possible, and having been possible in the past does not entail being possible now.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
And once again William proves that he considers the EU to be more important than the basic principles of democracy. I think we can safely say that he is the most extreme and fanatical poster on this site by a very long way. All his comments should be viewed through that lens.
If I may disagree with all three of you for the moment. This thread encapsulates many PB recent concepts over the past week so forgive me if I use it as a coatrack to deal with several at once. The concepts are:
* The EU forced the UK to Vote Leave/Article 50 by acting unreasonably * The EU is acting illegally/unreasonably/unrealistically in the present negotiations * The EU will die/suffer greatly following UK departure
Firstly, the past. The EU did nothing to/with the UK that the UK did not consent to, or indeed actively encourage. The multiple treaties (Lisbon, Amsterdam, Nice, yadda yadda) were not signed with a gun to the UK's head, it did so voluntarily and in many cases enthusiastically. I understand Cyclefree's previous point that Germany's admittance of mass migrants was nonconsensual and a violation of the applicable convention (Edinburgh?) but that's more something the EU failed to prevent than did. This constant casting of the EU as actor and UK as perpetual victim removes agency from the UK and denies personal responsibility.
Secondly the present. There is a continual refrain that the EU is acting illegally and unrealistically and unfairly. Words like "dubious legality" or "punishment" or "suicide" or "blackmail" keep jumping out. This is displacement activity, not dealing with the facts, which are a) the soon-to-be ex-spouse wants money and b) if we want something from them in the future we are going to have to give them something. This constant refrain of "but it's their fault!" encapsulates the phenomenon I have referred to as "failing and blaming": the belief that it is OK to fail - indeed good! - provided the right person can be blamed.
Thirdly, the future. There is an assumption on PB that the EU will suffer damage on UK departure, ranging from "noticeable" to "horrible death". I think the numbers and their behavior don't bear this out. The EU negotiators aren't acting like supplicants, the EU domestic press isn't banging on about Brexit, and the EU population aren't concerned by it. If this is an existential crisis for the EU they are not behaving like it and it may simply be that it is not. We hold an overinflated opinion of our own importance and - if you'll excuse the phrase - They Are Just Not That Into Us. In short, we exhibit British exceptionalism:
So three points: perpetual victim, failing and blaming, British exceptionalism. This isn't directed at you individually - everybody is doing it. Nor is it even a EU thing - it's just the most obvious example. What it is is a reflection of my disquiet over the way our behaviour as changed since about the mid 90's. A further adumbration of which is best left to another day...
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
And once again William proves that he considers the EU to be more important than the basic principles of democracy. I think we can safely say that he is the most extreme and fanatical poster on this site by a very long way. All his comments should be viewed through that lens.
Also, someone needs to tell the polling cos about the "all parts of civil society" to which William has access and they apparently don't.
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
Or to use your metaphor, we thought that putting water in it would avoid inebriation. We've now decided to stand up and are surprised to find we struggle to put one foot in front of the other.
If I may disagree with all three of you for the moment. This thread encapsulates many PB recent concepts over the past week so forgive me if I use it as a coatrack to deal with several at once. The concepts are:
* The EU forced the UK to Vote Leave/Article 50 by acting unreasonably * The EU is acting illegally/unreasonably/unrealistically in the present negotiations * The EU will die/suffer greatly following UK departure
Firstly, the past. The EU did nothing to/with the UK that the UK did not consent to, or indeed actively encourage. The multiple treaties (Lisbon, Amsterdam, Nice, yadda yadda) were not signed with a gun to the UK's head, it did so voluntarily and in many cases enthusiastically. I understand Cyclefree's previous point that Germany's admittance of mass migrants was nonconsensual and a violation of the applicable convention (Edinburgh?) but that's more something the EU failed to prevent than did. This constant casting of the EU as actor and UK as perpetual victim removes agency from the UK and denies personal responsibility.
Secondly the present. There is a continual refrain that the EU is acting illegally and unrealistically and unfairly. Words like "dubious legality" or "punishment" or "suicide" or "blackmail" keep jumping out. This is displacement activity, not dealing with the facts, which are a) the soon-to-be ex-spouse wants money and b) if we want something from them in the future we are going to have to give them something. This constant refrain of "but it's their fault!" encapsulates the phenomenon I have referred to as "failing and blaming": the belief that it is OK to fail - indeed good! - provided the right person can be blamed.
Thirdly, the future. There is an assumption on PB that the EU will suffer damage on UK departure, ranging from "noticeable" to "horrible death". I think the numbers and their behavior don't bear this out. The EU negotiators aren't acting like supplicants, the EU domestic press isn't banging on about Brexit, and the EU population aren't concerned by it. If this is an existential crisis for the EU they are not behaving like it and it may simply be that it is not. We hold an overinflated opinion of our own importance and - if you'll excuse the phrase - They Are Just Not That Into Us. In short, we exhibit British exceptionalism:
So three points: perpetual victim, failing and blaming, British exceptionalism. This isn't directed at you individually - everybody is doing it. Nor is it even a EU thing - it's just the most obvious example. What it is is a reflection of my disquiet over the way our behaviour as changed since about the mid 90's. A further adumbration of which is best left to another day...
For those reasons you should support Britain leaving the EU.
Mid 2019 remains the most likely date May will go, once a Brexit deal is done however insignificant a new Tory leader will be in place by the autumn (probably Boris or Davis) and they will call a general election 6 months later in Spring 2020
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
Or to use your metaphor, we thought that putting water in it would avoid inebriation. We've now decided to stand up and are surprised to find we struggle to put one foot in front of the other.
And your idea is to keep drinking but all alcohol and no water.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
AC Grayling will lead the revolution?
'What do we want? Unlimited free movement, 100 billion euros to the EU and the single market and customs union! When do we want it? Now!'
Can't see that getting much traction outside of Islington and Notting Hill
If I may disagree with all three of you for the moment. This thread encapsulates many PB recent concepts over the past week so forgive me if I use it as a coatrack to deal with several at once. The concepts are:
* The EU forced the UK to Vote Leave/Article 50 by acting unreasonably * The EU is acting illegally/unreasonably/unrealistically in the present negotiations * The EU will die/suffer greatly following UK departure
Firstly, the past. The EU did nothing to/with the UK that the UK did not consent to, or indeed actively encourage. The multiple treaties (Lisbon, Amsterdam, Nice, yadda yadda) were not signed with a gun to the UK's head, it did so voluntarily and in many cases enthusiastically. I understand Cyclefree's previous point that Germany's admittance of mass migrants was nonconsensual and a violation of the applicable convention (Edinburgh?) but that's more something the EU failed to prevent than did. This constant casting of the EU as actor and UK as perpetual victim removes agency from the UK and denies personal responsibility.
Secondly the present. There is a continual refrain that the EU is acting illegally and unrealistically and unfairly. Words like "dubious legality" or "punishment" or "suicide" or "blackmail" keep jumping out. This is displacement activity, not dealing with the facts, which are a) the soon-to-be ex-spouse wants money and b) if we want something from them in the future we are going to have to give them something. This constant refrain of "but it's their fault!" encapsulates the phenomenon I have referred to as "failing and blaming": the belief that it is OK to fail - indeed good! - provided the right person can be blamed.
Thirdly, the future. There is an assumption on PB that the EU will suffer damage on UK departure, ranging from "noticeable" to "horrible death". I think the numbers and their behavior don't bear this out. The EU negotiators aren't acting like supplicants, the EU domestic press isn't banging on about Brexit, and the EU population aren't concerned by it. If this is an existential crisis for the EU they are not behaving like it and it may simply be that it is not. We hold an overinflated opinion of our own importance and - if you'll excuse the phrase - They Are Just Not That Into Us. In short, we exhibit British exceptionalism:
So three points: perpetual victim, failing and blaming, British exceptionalism. This isn't directed at you individually - everybody is doing it. Nor is it even a EU thing - it's just the most obvious example. What it is is a reflection of my disquiet over the way our behaviour as changed since about the mid 90's. A further adumbration of which is best left to another day...
Nasty little paradox you got there, gov: to claim that British exceptionalism is a thing is to commit an act of British exceptionalism.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
William I voted remain after a listening to the tortuous arguments on both sides.My family was split on the issue and it was not an easy choice for me to make.However can not see the protests you describe happening.The only protests in this country in recent times having any impact were from the right , holding the country to ransom over petrol prices .
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
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.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
Or to use your metaphor, we thought that putting water in it would avoid inebriation. We've now decided to stand up and are surprised to find we struggle to put one foot in front of the other.
And your idea is to keep drinking but all alcohol and no water.
Hmm... Maybe the metaphor needs work. Ok, we thought that adding a drop of sovereign whiskey would mask the taste of EU membership, but after 40 years, it's left us tired and emotional.
For those reasons you should support Britain leaving the EU.
It's not a bad point actually, and there were arguments that if made could have made me vote Leave. But they were not and I think departing the EU will not make us change our behavior but rather indulge in it further. A pity: we seem to be letting a good crisis go to waste...
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
The business community are 90% Remain. They are aghast at where this NEW Tory Party has landed them. Just look at the Remain figures in the big cities particularly London and what happened to Tory support at the last election in those places. And that was BEFORE any noticable downturn.
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 Tories won in 1992 even in a recession because of Kinnock, Corbyn is the biggest motivator to vote against Labour since him
Mr. L, Labour's vote was due to: 1) Better campaign by Corbyn 2) Corbynistas 3) Labour tribal loyalty 4) Anti-Conservative/Anti-hard departure from the EU tactical voting 5) Collapse of UKIP, to the (primary) benefit of Labour
Mr. Sandpit, hope qualifying isn't affected.
On 5, I think polling evidence is fairly clear that the collapse of UKIP benefited the Tories most. It just didn't benefit them as overwhelmingly as expected (some here used to just add up Con+UKIP to suggest a solid right-wing vote).
I'd replace that one by 5) Labour's programme. It actually cut through - people saw some positive stuff that would improve their lives. They didn't necessarily feel it would all work perfectly, nothing ever does, but here was a party talking about things that mattered to them.
Up to the election, we seemed from media reports to be only talking about migrants and benefit recipients, so most people weren't interested - the fact that we were concerned about tuition fees, making very explicit NHS commitments, raising the minimum wage further, sorting out the privatised train mess and the like was welcome news.
And Corbyn could talk about issues such as student debt and unaffordable housing in a way that establishment politicians couldn't.
True and if there is any unrest in this country , this is the area it will come from , not leaving the EU.
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
Or to use your metaphor, we thought that putting water in it would avoid inebriation. We've now decided to stand up and are surprised to find we struggle to put one foot in front of the other.
And your idea is to keep drinking but all alcohol and no water.
Hmm... Maybe the metaphor needs work. Ok, we thought that adding a drop of sovereign whiskey would mask the taste of EU membership, but after 40 years, it's left us tired and emotional.
Indeed so now we've decided that to change tact. Going cold turkey may be difficult when we've been hooked on the membership for so long but in the long run sobriety could be very good for us.
F1. Six drivers have grid penalties for engine changes - both Red Bulls, both Renaults, Sainz and Alonso. Qualifying session starts on time, in a couple of minutes. Still raining though.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
The business community are 90% Remain. They are aghast at where this NEW Tory Party has landed them. Just look at the Remain figures in the big cities particularly London and what happened to Tory support at the last election in those places. And that was BEFORE any noticable downturn.
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 Tories won in 1992 even in a recession because of Kinnock, Corbyn is the biggest motivator to vote against Labour since him
Yes both were derided by the MSM but they have less influence than 92 especially with voters who might vote Labour.
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Only because the Tories have now dropped it
Which is a shame. Hopefully we’ll see a Royal Commission or cross-party enquiry on both social care and planning/housing. These issues have been on the too-difficult list for more than a decade now and any proposal from politicians is framed in derogatory language by their opponents.
This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
This is what struck me:
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
An ex-colleague at Defra told me that during CAP negotiations he showed the (I think) Italians a graph that showed how much they put into EU budget for agriculture vs. received back... they were completely nonplussed at that perspective.
"The result is not a president but a poltergeist, who does little more than make noise and threaten damage. He has all but abandoned the office for purpose of substantive leadership and governance, but is sufficiently present to make a mess."
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Only because the Tories have now dropped it
Your point being?
The biggest boost to Labour in the general election campaign came from the dementia tax
Surely Ms Weyand is mistaken- the EU enters these commitments solely, not severally and jointly with individual members?
The EU has committed money to Pakistan.
The EU has a discussion to have with a departing member - but that's the EU's problem not Pakistan's.
Indeed. The EU appears to think that the assets belong to them alone, but the liabilities belong to the member states.
Also why is she tweeting it as a "practical example" rather than a "legally owed", especially as it's a nutrition project ( I assume from the title) in the Third World, rather than say a by pass in Portugal.
Touch of "we'd better try the moral angle, because we've been rumbled we're not on strong legal foundations to sting the Brits for very much"?
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
The business community are 90% Remain. They are aghast at where this NEW Tory Party has landed them. Just look at the Remain figures in the big cities particularly London and what happened to Tory support at the last election in those places. And that was BEFORE any noticable downturn.
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 Tories won in 1992 even in a recession because of Kinnock, Corbyn is the biggest motivator to vote against Labour since him
Yes both were derided by the MSM but they have less influence than 92 especially with voters who might vote Labour.
Kinnock won 9 more seats in 1992 than Corbyn did in 2017
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.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Only because the Tories have now dropped it
Which is a shame. Hopefully we’ll see a Royal Commission or cross-party enquiry on both social care and planning/housing. These issues have been on the too-difficult list for more than a decade now and any proposal from politicians is framed in derogatory language by their opponents.
Perhaps but I doubt either party will ever propose again counting your house as part of your assets for personal social care purposes.
On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
This is what struck me:
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
An ex-colleague at Defra told me that during CAP negotiations he showed the (I think) Italians a graph that showed how much they put into EU budget for agriculture vs. received back... they were completely nonplussed at that perspective.
Exactly. Should all taxpayers get a graph of much they put in and how much they get back.
Us Brits have a sense of entitlement. The world should fall at our feet. We had the cake and ate it with icing on top and with cherries.
We were in the single market, customs union, opt outs, rebates [ which is not even in the treaty ]. And, we blew it !
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.
Who is their Blair,
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Only because the Tories have now dropped it
Which is a shame. Hopefully we’ll see a Royal Commission or cross-party enquiry on both social care and planning/housing. These issues have been on the too-difficult list for more than a decade now and any proposal from politicians is framed in derogatory language by their opponents.
Perhaps but I doubt either party will ever propose again counting your house as part of your assets for personal social care purposes.
On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
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.
Who is their Blair,
There doesn't need to be a Blair, just a desire to depose the Tories.
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.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Only because the Tories have now dropped it
Which is a shame. Hopefully we’ll see a Royal Commission or cross-party enquiry on
Perhaps but I doubt either party will ever propose again counting your house as part of your assets for personal social care purposes.
On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
Follow the Swedish model.
Which means higher taxes or else follow the model of Germany, Japan and the Nethrrlands and fund it through social insurance
Comments
I deal with foreign customers and suppliers daily. It's been mentioned twice in 14 months. Once in the context of a business dinner with some Belgians who agreed whatever happened "people like us will still do business" (their words), and once in the context (also Belgian as it happens) that Brexit was less bad than Wales knocking them out of the Euros.
Read into that what you will.
And while I'm not a Leave voter (and indeed would rather be governed by Barnier or even Juncker than by, say, Boris), I doubt if many Leave voters would really point to EU policies as the reason they voted for it - it was far more a gut reaction: "My life is a bit crap, the EU hasn't done anything much for me, maybe leaving would enable us to sort things out." Short of some massive Marshall Aid programme for the UK, I don't think the EU could have done much to change that.
1) Better campaign by Corbyn
2) Corbynistas
3) Labour tribal loyalty
4) Anti-Conservative/Anti-hard departure from the EU tactical voting
5) Collapse of UKIP, to the (primary) benefit of Labour
Mr. Sandpit, hope qualifying isn't affected.
The robbing of the young to subsidise the old in policies involving tuition fees, debt, housing and pensions.
Having greater control of immigration would somewhat rebalance this failure.
Unlike the practice sessions it’s possible to delay the qualifying session if it looks like the weather will be more suitable later in the day. You’ll remember that in the USA a couple of years ago they did the qualy session on Sunday morning after Saturday was completely washed out.
I'd replace that one by 5) Labour's programme. It actually cut through - people saw some positive stuff that would improve their lives. They didn't necessarily feel it would all work perfectly, nothing ever does, but here was a party talking about things that mattered to them.
Up to the election, we seemed from media reports to be only talking about migrants and benefit recipients, so most people weren't interested - the fact that we were concerned about tuition fees, making very explicit NHS commitments, raising the minimum wage further, sorting out the privatised train mess and the like was welcome news.
Apart from on here I hear literally no criticisms of the way Brexit is being pursued.
On the doorsteps I hear lots about housing, pay rises (lack thereof) etc.
Good luck with the new term!
Ironically, given what happened to him, Tim Farron, had the line of the campaign:
"How dare you call a snap election, and then not turn up to debate the issues."
Mr. Palmer, might the circle not be squared in that the voting itself was fine but there was hacking of electronic systems and other such shenanigans after the voting in-person occurred?
Yet more evidence, were it needed, that electronic voting is bloody stupid.
Any electronic system fails on one or more of hackability, integrity of the secret ballot or anonymous audit trail of votes cast.
We were a senior board member of this organisation not a trainee typist to whom the EU owed a duty of care.
From the little I've seen, I'm guessing the vote were reported correctly to a location, but some one / several people misreported results further up the chain. I suppose it would be a little like the presiding officer at one of our counts giving fictitious results - something that should be difficult in our system (or at least it should be if people are paying attention).
But that might be wrong - there seems precious little detail.
If that's the case, then international observers probably would not have detected it: they would have checked polling stations, seen people being able to vote freely and fairly, and not seen the shenanigans going on elsewhere.
Edit: it appears to be more complex than that:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/08/30/kenya-the-election-and-the-cover-up/
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/italy-pre-qualifying-2017.html
My impression of the Kenyan vote was that Kenyatta actually won even if the Bureaucrats didn't poke their noses in it.
We should be careful that we do not come to a situation where a election is considered fair only if the ruling President / Party loses !
Interestingly, as they’ve kept pushing the Abu Dhabi race back so it’s now on the last weekend of November, it’s not unknown for it to rain there that weekend, it’s happened three times in the last decade.
Don't worry, 3 years down the line, it will be Trump/USA because, guess what, the "free" trade agreement was nowhere near finalised.
Edited extra bit: off now, shall return for the pre-race prognostication.
Leave the fantasies to James Chapman.
* The EU forced the UK to Vote Leave/Article 50 by acting unreasonably
* The EU is acting illegally/unreasonably/unrealistically in the present negotiations
* The EU will die/suffer greatly following UK departure
Firstly, the past. The EU did nothing to/with the UK that the UK did not consent to, or indeed actively encourage. The multiple treaties (Lisbon, Amsterdam, Nice, yadda yadda) were not signed with a gun to the UK's head, it did so voluntarily and in many cases enthusiastically. I understand Cyclefree's previous point that Germany's admittance of mass migrants was nonconsensual and a violation of the applicable convention (Edinburgh?) but that's more something the EU failed to prevent than did. This constant casting of the EU as actor and UK as perpetual victim removes agency from the UK and denies personal responsibility.
Secondly the present. There is a continual refrain that the EU is acting illegally and unrealistically and unfairly. Words like "dubious legality" or "punishment" or "suicide" or "blackmail" keep jumping out. This is displacement activity, not dealing with the facts, which are a) the soon-to-be ex-spouse wants money and b) if we want something from them in the future we are going to have to give them something. This constant refrain of "but it's their fault!" encapsulates the phenomenon I have referred to as "failing and blaming": the belief that it is OK to fail - indeed good! - provided the right person can be blamed.
Thirdly, the future. There is an assumption on PB that the EU will suffer damage on UK departure, ranging from "noticeable" to "horrible death". I think the numbers and their behavior don't bear this out. The EU negotiators aren't acting like supplicants, the EU domestic press isn't banging on about Brexit, and the EU population aren't concerned by it. If this is an existential crisis for the EU they are not behaving like it and it may simply be that it is not. We hold an overinflated opinion of our own importance and - if you'll excuse the phrase - They Are Just Not That Into Us. In short, we exhibit British exceptionalism:
So three points: perpetual victim, failing and blaming, British exceptionalism. This isn't directed at you individually - everybody is doing it. Nor is it even a EU thing - it's just the most obvious example. What it is is a reflection of my disquiet over the way our behaviour as changed since about the mid 90's. A further adumbration of which is best left to another day...
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
Can't see that getting much traction outside of Islington and Notting Hill
https://twitter.com/WeyandSabine/status/903942063275864065
Qualifying session starts on time, in a couple of minutes. Still raining though.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41123138
I've been getting increasingly fed up with the volume of fake crap up for sale on Amazon - place is getting like ebay.
Thought those crummy hoverboard battery fires might have taught them a lesson, but apparently not... hope they get their arse in gear after this one.
The EU has committed money to Pakistan.
The EU has a discussion to have with a departing member - but that's the EU's problem not Pakistan's.
"The result is not a president but a poltergeist, who does little more than make noise and threaten damage. He has all but abandoned the office for purpose of substantive leadership and governance, but is sufficiently present to make a mess."
https://lawfareblog.com/its-time-congress-needs-open-formal-impeachment-inquiry
Touch of "we'd better try the moral angle, because we've been rumbled we're not on strong legal foundations to sting the Brits for very much"?
On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
Us Brits have a sense of entitlement. The world should fall at our feet. We had the cake and ate it with icing on top and with cherries.
We were in the single market, customs union, opt outs, rebates [ which is not even in the treaty ]. And, we blew it !
http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/directors_general/weyand_en.pdf