How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
Well! That was some speech! Not the borefest we were expecting. "F. off" subliminal messaging. Mrs May about to expire on stage at any time. The P45 prank that almost looked it was set up by the organisers. Unfortunate pan shots on the faces of the assembled cabinet: how long was this - and she - going to last?
The content was weird. In part it was the speech David Cameron would give; in part the one Ed Miliband would give. Strange, given how beastly she was to both men.
But one concrete thing in it. It all comes back to Brexit in the end. She made it clear she was going to declare sovereignty and sign on the dotted line of the A50 Withdrawal Agreement. All her prospective replacements will want her to do that, not them. So she will be around until she does.
Northern Ireland is the sticking point, not the money or - IMHO - even the ECJ jurisdiction on its own citizens within the UK, which is solvable with a joint body.
I agree with Richard Nabavi that's inseparable from the trade deal for the UK overall, so it really is chicken and egg.
The government's position is no physical infrastructure at all on the Irish border. If you think Northern Ireland is inseparable form the UK as a whole then that means that the government has no real intention of leaving the customs union at all.
Or is planning for the Customs union to include NI - via some form of all Ireland structure - but not GB?
Ireland and the U.K had freedom of movement and customs controls from 1923 to 1993 so there is a sort of precedent.
And smuggling was rampant. Will the EU tolerate a bordernthat allows it?
They will if the alternative is Ireland leaving as well as UK.
Ireland will not leave, the amount of goodies they get from the EU far outweighs what a post Brexit UK could ever offer.
I don't like Mrs May. She is a difficult person to like. I don't have a high regard for her abilities or her judgment. I am concerned that someone with such poor judgment is in charge of our country at this time.
But that was cruel. This is a woman who has given her life to public service. She has a very strong reputation for integrity. She really didn't deserve that. I like to think that if I was doing this to myself my better half would have a word.
Miss Cyclefree, Cameron's 2007 speech. There was serious talk at the time from people like Andrew Neil that the Conservatives might cease to be if they lost the potential snap election that year.
What can the Tories do though? They need a human lightning rod to take the blame for the increasingly apparent Brexit catastrophe. She's going to have to keep going.
Seriously, I think you are right. Forget about money for council housing, engineering apprenticeships. Mrs May's job is to keep the show going for long enough to say, "We have left the EU and it doesn't look too bad" (because we're sticking with the EU system on a pay as you go, do as you are told basis).
If she can get a partial deal on trade, keep the cost lower while bringing back control of immigration and laws, she will be able to spin it as a moderate success. At that point she should hand over to someone from the next generation.
She won't get an agreement on trade, limited immigration or repatriation of laws. She might be able to get a partial and temporary continuation of current arrangements while they work out what the hell happens next. Otherwise 800 treaties that support our national lifestyle will lapse. The point is that if we want things to carry on approximately as they are, it will be by the decision of the EU, it will cost us and we will have to agree to what they want. It might seem stupid to pay more to get less and have less control, when we had all that by right. But there we go. I voted Remain.
Yes that sums it up pretty well.
But I'm struck by how quickly the political forces that supported Brexit have withered. UKIP? A ghostly shadow of its former self. The Tory grassroots? A shrinking, ageing group who have been knocked sideways by the general election disaster. The Mail, Sun & Telegraph? Still in the game but well past the peak of their influence. Business groups and economists? Support for Brexit is now all but impossible to find. The only enthusiastic Brexiteers left seem to be a minority of Tory MPs and I wonder if this will be enough to see the process through when the sh"t hits the fan.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
Brexit could only ever be an incompetently delivered disaster because even its apparently sensible supporters have fundamental misconceptions.
Well! That was some speech! Not the borefest we were expecting. "F. off" subliminal messaging. Mrs May about to expire on stage at any time. The P45 prank that almost looked it was set up by the organisers. Unfortunate pan shots on the faces of the assembled cabinet: how long was this - and she - going to last?
The content was weird. In part it was the speech David Cameron would give; in part the one Ed Miliband would give. Strange, given how beastly she was to both men.
But one concrete thing in it. It all comes back to Brexit in the end. She made it clear she was going to declare sovereignty and sign on the dotted line of the A50 Withdrawal Agreement. All her prospective replacements will want her to do that, not them. So she will be around until she does.
Northern Ireland is the sticking point, not the money or - IMHO - even the ECJ jurisdiction on its own citizens within the UK, which is solvable with a joint body.
I agree with Richard Nabavi that's inseparable from the trade deal for the UK overall, so it really is chicken and egg.
The government's position is no physical infrastructure at all on the Irish border. If you think Northern Ireland is inseparable form the UK as a whole then that means that the government has no real intention of leaving the customs union at all.
Or is planning for the Customs union to include NI - via some form of all Ireland structure - but not GB?
Ireland and the U.K had freedom of movement and customs controls from 1923 to 1993 so there is a sort of precedent.
And smuggling was rampant. Will the EU tolerate a bordernthat allows it?
They will if the alternative is Ireland leaving as well as UK.
Ireland will not leave, the amount of goodies they get from the EU far outweighs what a post Brexit UK could ever offer.
They're also in the Euro. Disentangling themselves from that would be an incredibly expensive process.
Well, we all know who's responsible for this debacle: Boris. He's been engaging in a campaign of psychological warfare against Theresa for months. Defiance here, threatening behaviour there - it was clearly an attempt to chip away at Theresa and destroy whatever was left of her resilience and self-esteem. And she eventually cracked at the optimal time for his purposes. Boris must be jubilant that his scheme has worked to perfection. What an ineffable git!
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
Brexit could only ever be an incompetently delivered disaster because even its apparently sensible supporters have fundamental misconceptions.
Even that wouldn't matter too much if only they'd agreed amongst themselves which misconceptions they were going to major on.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
One problem is that one of the major players (who shall remain nameless) sees it less as an opportunity to improve his country, and more as an opportunity to become Prime Minister.
But the biggest problem, as you identify, is lack of a clear (and articulated) vision of where we want to be and the trade offs required to get there.
@casino_royale@Elliot@Richard_Tyndall Ridiculous bed wetting. They'll be writing books about May for decades. How did someone prevent enough to give the often misunderstood ' Nasty Party ' speech and who deservedly became PM end up offering the 9 month " Citizens of nowhere " to ' Crush the Sabateurs ' nightmare ? She's reaping what she sowed.
Nah. You are just a nasty piece of sputum with zero empathy. The simplest options are usually the correct ones.
I do feel some empathy for May. The reaction to her coughing is deeply unfair. I agree with the jist of her citizens of nowhere comments but it was ill judged and taken massively out of context. No sympathy at all from me for her unnecessary election fiasco and happy to laugh at her expense at crushing the saboteurs (although it wasn't her words, just a daily mail front page)
But actually I am far more concerned about the EU migrants who have 'accidentally' recieved deportation letters from the home office and are terrified for their famillies and livelihoods. I also notice that there is no shortage of deranged psychopaths who celebrate such actions as the implementation of rules and laws. They are the people with no empathy.
What does May ultimately stand to lose? her job? pride? Some people are going to lose much more because of her decisions.
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
There is no sane group of people to run Brexit and won't be for the next 7-10 years.
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
There is no sane group of people to run Brexit and won't be for the next 7-10 years.
I live in hope, we might see David Cameron, or George Osborne, or Ruth Davidson standing in the forthcoming Maidenhead by election.
I don't like Mrs May. She is a difficult person to like. I don't have a high regard for her abilities or her judgment. I am concerned that someone with such poor judgment is in charge of our country at this time.
But that was cruel. This is a woman who has given her life to public service. She has a very strong reputation for integrity. She really didn't deserve that. I like to think that if I was doing this to myself my better half would have a word.
I agree with this. I thought she ought to go after the election. Her health is more important, frankly.
I also don't agree that she has no political skills or empathy. She is unsuited to be PM and is shy and lacking in charisma. But the Hillsborough families spoke highly of her help and of her genuine concern for them. Her work on anti-slavery is worthwhile and she finally got rid of the loathsome Qatada. She was also right in what she said to the Police Federation about the treatment of black youths and, frankly, in what she said to the Tories when they were in Opposition about how they were perceived. She also did quite a lot to help women Tory candidates. I think her first speech as PM was very good. So she meant well. But she lacked the ability to follow through on it and has been utterly overwhelmed by Brexit.
May is an example of the Peter principle in action. Some people grow into a role. She has not. But, let's face it, difficult to see who would given the enormous and probably irreconcilable pressures on anyone becoming PM in the wake of the referendum result.
If Corbyn becomes PM I would expect him to be overwhelmed as well. It is far far easier to make a diagnosis of what has gone wrong than it is to come up with practical solutions which command the support of the Cabinet, MPs, voters and, in the case of negotiations, the EU.
We need a Solomon. What we have is a Frank Spencer. Waiting in the wings is "Wolfie" Smith.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, no deal is a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. I think Mrs May has, from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech. But once people understand the reality, they won't be happy about it.
Well! That was some speech! Not the borefest we were expecting. "F. off" subliminal messaging. Mrs May about to expire on stage at any time. The P45 prank that almost looked it was set up by the organisers. Unfortunate pan shots on the faces of the assembled cabinet: how long was this - and she - going to last?
The content was weird. In part it was the speech David Cameron would give; in part the one Ed Miliband would give. Strange, given how beastly she was to both men.
But one concrete thing in it. It all comes back to Brexit in the end. She made it clear she was going to declare sovereignty and sign on the dotted line of the A50 Withdrawal Agreement. All her prospective replacements will want her to do that, not them. So she will be around until she does.
Northern Ireland is the sticking point, not the money or - IMHO - even the ECJ jurisdiction on its own citizens within the UK, which is solvable with a joint body.
I agree with Richard Nabavi that's inseparable from the trade deal for the UK overall, so it really is chicken and egg.
The government's position is no physical infrastructure at all on the Irish border. If you think Northern Ireland is inseparable form the UK as a whole then that means that the government has no real intention of leaving the customs union at all.
Or is planning for the Customs union to include NI - via some form of all Ireland structure - but not GB?
Ireland and the U.K had freedom of movement and customs controls from 1923 to 1993 so there is a sort of precedent.
And smuggling was rampant. Will the EU tolerate a bordernthat allows it?
They will if the alternative is Ireland leaving as well as UK.
Ireland will not leave, the amount of goodies they get from the EU far outweighs what a post Brexit UK could ever offer.
Have they repaid us the billions Osborne lent them a few years ago when their banks were going down the toilet?
There won't be quite as many goodies in future and harmonised corporation tax rates will not do Ireland any favours. But I agree that Ireland will not leave the EU.
Re health of Prime Ministers, Neville Chamberlain's bowel cancer led to his death in Nov 1940, does anyone know if the diagnosis was made when he was PM?
“It is when tested the most that we reach deep within ourselves and find that our capacity to the challenge before us may well be limitless.”
And here’s the speech from the West Wing:
“Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we’re reminded that that capacity may well be limitless.”
Actually that should read “It is cough when tested the most that cough we reach deep within cough ourselves and find that our capacity cough to the challenge before us cough may well be limitless.”
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
Re health of Prime Ministers, Neville Chamberlain's bowel cancer led to his death in Nov 1940, does anyone know if the diagnosis was made when he was PM?
Diagnosis was in the summer of 1940, so after he stopped being PM, but it is very likely he had cancer whilst PM.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
One problem is that one of the major players (who shall remain nameless) sees it less as an opportunity to improve his country, and more as an opportunity to become Prime Minister.
But the biggest problem, as you identify, is lack of a clear (and articulated) vision of where we want to be and the trade offs required to get there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I wish Michael Gove were Prime Minister. Who knows, he may yet have an opportunity to become Foreign Secretary at the least.
Just been exploring Google, found this book on British PMs, the author appears to imply 70% of PMs had had some sort of psychiatric disorder. Has anyone on PB read it or seen reviews?
Yes, that was the one point of real significance from the speech. A big housing program was trailed in advance (the BBC yesterday, for example) as being something that would feature - and this is little more than window dressing.
The coughing is pretty well irrelevant*- we know she's a hopeless performer in front of a crowd anyway - but this is the only real chance she'll get for a reboot, and it seems to me she's blown it.
*unless it's a symptom of being genuinely too ill to continue in post, which seems doubtful
James Kirkup thinks this is very serious for Theresa.
The only other time I think I’ve ever seen a PM stare into the abyss in this way was in Japan in 2003 when, days after the death of David Kelly, a reporter asked Tony Blair if he had ‘blood on your hands’ – Blair, a man never lost for words or unsure of himself, froze for a second with a look of naked terror before regaining his composure and walking away.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
The trouble is though that people won't understand the reality until it actually happens. None of us really do, if we're honest with ourselves.
Amongst many people, there is a rather lazy chain of inductive reasoning that goes like this: the government will find a way of solving the problem because they always do.
I sincerely believe that Brexit is simply beyond the capacity of any government to solve, and no politician is up to the job. It's something that we have to face up to as a nation.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
Re health of Prime Ministers, Neville Chamberlain's bowel cancer led to his death in Nov 1940, does anyone know if the diagnosis was made when he was PM?
Diagnosis was in the summer of 1940, so after he stopped being PM, but it is very likely he had cancer whilst PM.
Andrew Bonar Law was diagnosed with terminal cancer whilst PM in 1923. Henry Campbell Bannerman resigned as PM only a fortnight before he died (still living at No 10) in 1908. And Churchill's stroke in 1953 is perhaps the most recent example of a PM carrying on despite very serious health problems.
James Kirkup thinks this is very serious for Theresa.
The only other time I think I’ve ever seen a PM stare into the abyss in this way was in Japan in 2003 when, days after the death of David Kelly, a reporter asked Tony Blair if he had ‘blood on your hands’ – Blair, a man never lost for words or unsure of himself, froze for a second with a look of naked terror before regaining his composure and walking away.
I don't like Mrs May. She is a difficult person to like. I don't have a high regard for her abilities or her judgment. I am concerned that someone with such poor judgment is in charge of our country at this time.
But that was cruel. This is a woman who has given her life to public service. She has a very strong reputation for integrity. She really didn't deserve that. I like to think that if I was doing this to myself my better half would have a word.
I agree with this. I thought she ought to go after the election. Her health is more important, frankly.
I also don't agree that she has no political skills or empathy. She is unsuited to be PM and is shy and lacking in charisma. But the Hillsborough families spoke highly of her help and of her genuine concern for them. Her work on anti-slavery is worthwhile and she finally got rid of the loathsome Qatada. She was also right in what she said to the Police Federation about the treatment of black youths and, frankly, in what she said to the Tories when they were in Opposition about how they were perceived. She also did quite a lot to help women Tory candidates. I think her first speech as PM was very good. So she meant well. But she lacked the ability to follow through on it and has been utterly overwhelmed by Brexit.
May is an example of the Peter principle in action. Some people grow into a role. She has not. But, let's face it, difficult to see who would given the enormous and probably irreconcilable pressures on anyone becoming PM in the wake of the referendum result.
If Corbyn becomes PM I would expect him to be overwhelmed as well. It is far far easier to make a diagnosis of what has gone wrong than it is to come up with practical solutions which command the support of the Cabinet, MPs, voters and, in the case of negotiations, the EU.
We need a Solomon. What we have is a Frank Spencer. Waiting in the wings is "Wolfie" Smith.
Sounds about right. She had a couple of chances to firmly grasp the nettle... and merely brushed it.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
Brexit could only ever be an incompetently delivered disaster because even its apparently sensible supporters have fundamental misconceptions.
Even that wouldn't matter too much if only they'd agreed amongst themselves which misconceptions they were going to major on.
Just checking some bets, and a bit surprised Ladbrokes hasn't paid out on Yes in the Catalan referendum yet. They may be waiting for the overseas votes to come in.
Edited extra bit: both free market (3) and run on the pound (evens) came off, proving, yet again, Conservatives are better for prosperity.
I don't like Mrs May. She is a difficult person to like. I don't have a high regard for her abilities or her judgment. I am concerned that someone with such poor judgment is in charge of our country at this time.
But that was cruel. This is a woman who has given her life to public service. She has a very strong reputation for integrity. She really didn't deserve that. I like to think that if I was doing this to myself my better half would have a word.
I don't like Mrs May. She is a difficult person to like. I don't have a high regard for her abilities or her judgment. I am concerned that someone with such poor judgment is in charge of our country at this time.
But that was cruel. This is a woman who has given her life to public service. She has a very strong reputation for integrity. She really didn't deserve that. I like to think that if I was doing this to myself my better half would have a word.
I agree with this. I thought she ought to go after the election. Her health is more important, frankly.
I also don't agree that she has no political skills or empathy. She is unsuited to be PM and is shy and lacking in charisma. But the Hillsborough families spoke highly of her help and of her genuine concern for them. Her work on anti-slavery is worthwhile and she finally got rid of the loathsome Qatada. She was also right in what she said to the Police Federation about the treatment of black youths and, frankly, in what she said to the Tories when they were in Opposition about how they were perceived. She also did quite a lot to help women Tory candidates. I think her first speech as PM was very good. So she meant well. But she lacked the ability to follow through on it and has been utterly overwhelmed by Brexit.
May is an example of the Peter principle in action. Some people grow into a role. She has not. But, let's face it, difficult to see who would given the enormous and probably irreconcilable pressures on anyone becoming PM in the wake of the referendum result.
If Corbyn becomes PM I would expect him to be overwhelmed as well. It is far far easier to make a diagnosis of what has gone wrong than it is to come up with practical solutions which command the support of the Cabinet, MPs, voters and, in the case of negotiations, the EU.
We need a Solomon. What we have is a Frank Spencer. Waiting in the wings is "Wolfie" Smith.
Yes, that was the one point of real significance from the speech. A big housing program was trailed in advance (the BBC yesterday, for example) as being something that would feature - and this is little more than window dressing.
The coughing is pretty well irrelevant*- we know she's a hopeless performer in front of a crowd anyway - but this is the only real chance she'll get for a reboot, and it seems to me she's blown it.
*unless it's a symptom of being genuinely too ill to continue in post, which seems doubtful
Posted earlier I was excited about this housebuilding... now I wonder why she bothered with trailing this announcement.
If she thinks it's a popular policy - why not actually do it properly!?
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But, isn't that as much the fault of the EU as the UK?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, no deal is a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. I think Mrs May has, from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech. But once people understand the reality, they won't be happy about it.
I think it's more that we can't decide, and the EU aren't willing to offer us a choice.
James Kirkup thinks this is very serious for Theresa.
The only other time I think I’ve ever seen a PM stare into the abyss in this way was in Japan in 2003 when, days after the death of David Kelly, a reporter asked Tony Blair if he had ‘blood on your hands’ – Blair, a man never lost for words or unsure of himself, froze for a second with a look of naked terror before regaining his composure and walking away.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
One problem is that one of the major players (who shall remain nameless) sees it less as an opportunity to improve his country, and more as an opportunity to become Prime Minister.
But the biggest problem, as you identify, is lack of a clear (and articulated) vision of where we want to be and the trade offs required to get there.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I wish Michael Gove were Prime Minister. Who knows, he may yet have an opportunity to become Foreign Secretary at the least.
What the guy who doesn't take advice from people who know what they're doing (aka 'experts')
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But, isn't that as much the fault of the EU as the UK?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Why would that make anyone want to stay?
In most respects our position is essentially that we want to leave for the the same arrangements.
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But, isn't that as much the fault of the EU as the UK?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Why would that make anyone want to stay?
The EU are not stopping us from leaving, in fact they do not seem to care much about what we do once we go.
We are simply not that important to them. We can stay or go - it is up to us, but if we go we are on our own.
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But, isn't that as much the fault of the EU as the UK?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Why would that make anyone want to stay?
In most respects our position is essentially that we want to leave for the the same arrangements.
Not quite. It's pretty clear to me that UK public opinion would settle around a close trading relationship without the political bits.
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But, isn't that as much the fault of the EU as the UK?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Why would that make anyone want to stay?
In most respects our position is essentially that we want to leave for the the same arrangements.
Not quite. It's pretty clear to me that UK public opinion would settle around a close trading relationship without the political bits.
But that's not possible. Take the case of Bombardier - that kind of action would not be possible within the EU but it is within NAFTA. The reason is that to have a trading relationship as close as we have necessarily involves the political bits - they are not some optional extra.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But, isn't that as much the fault of the EU as the UK?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Why would that make anyone want to stay?
The EU are not stopping us from leaving, in fact they do not seem to care much about what we do once we go.
We are simply not that important to them. We can stay or go - it is up to us, but if we go we are on our own.
I think we are more important to them than their rhetoric or behaviour suggest. Financially, economically and militarily.
That's easily dismissed as anglocentric self-importance, but it isn't.
The fact they (currently) couldn't care less about what happens once we do go is absolutely part of the problem.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
I wonder how the EU which we're told is "the keeper of peace in the Europe" is going to sort this out.
It is none of the EU's business as they fully acknowledge.
That may be formally true. (Though I suspect the real reason is that they'd much rather not get involved.).
But, come on - if the EU can be a guarantor of the Northern Ireland peace process, then surely it should be seeking to play some sort of mediation role when one of its members starts sending troops into a province, and there must be a non-negligible risk of more - possibly fatal - violence.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
We need someone who can convince people like you that we need to join the Eurozone and be happy about it. It's a tall order.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
Re health of Prime Ministers, Neville Chamberlain's bowel cancer led to his death in Nov 1940, does anyone know if the diagnosis was made when he was PM?
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
We need someone who can convince people like you that we need to join the Eurozone and be happy about it. It's a tall order.
You need someone like me who can recognise that not everyone shares your political vision, and Europe can only be successful as a continent if it's willing to be flexible.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
How many conference speeches really make a difference?
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant. - The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it - Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But, isn't that as much the fault of the EU as the UK?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Why would that make anyone want to stay?
In most respects our position is essentially that we want to leave for the the same arrangements.
Not quite. It's pretty clear to me that UK public opinion would settle around a close trading relationship without the political bits.
But that's not possible. Take the case of Bombardier - that kind of action would not be possible within the EU but it is within NAFTA. The reason is that to have a trading relationship as close as we have necessarily involves the political bits - they are not some optional extra.
EFTA members of the EEA have it so clearly you are not correct.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, no deal is a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. I think Mrs May has, from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech. But once people understand the reality, they won't be happy about it.
I think it's more that we can't decide, and the EU aren't willing to offer us a choice.
TBF we don't know for sure that the EU will offer us the option of a client state on their terms. I think they will. The default is crash out and disaster. Then we don't have a choice. It's what it is.
If the Tories are serious about trying to regain at least the appearance of control and maybe hold Corbyn out, someone in their party would have to prevail on Ruth Davidson to change her mind, arrange a by-election in a safe seat (preferably the safest seat in Scotland for the Tories - which is a weird sentence to type but is actually meaningful now), get her into Parliament, and get her into Number 10.
I don't think that will happen. Instead, we've got: - Retain May - Boris. (Seriously?) - Hammond. - Davis - Rudd - Rees-Mogg
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
Actually, Boris looks like he is almost crying, and his face is full of human empathy, and pity (which is the natural reaction, the speech was so sad)
I am acquainted with Boris Johnson. He is ambitious and smart and he can be ruthless, but he is not some evil careerist monster. He is also, sincerely, a eurosceptic.
Boris caused it. The pressure he's been exerting with his constant disobedience has built and built and Theresa finally snapped.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, it is nevertheless a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not that many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. Mrs May from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech, I think has. But once people understand the reality, they are not going to be happy about it.
This off the cuff comment from Rees-Mogg might be revealing of the way things are heading:
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
Absolutely. Clean Brexit or EU + Schengen + Eurozone on the way to a federal (and hopefully more democratic) state.
People who wanted a semi-detached relationship will curse the day they turned their backs on Cameron's deal.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
True, but we need to stop fannying about. Either we go in or we continue out.
There is no middle way. There never was.
(1) It is. They lose £10pa. They lose a sixth of their economy/population. They lose 25% of their military heft. They lose their chief financial centre. I recognise they are angry and also dismissive, but that matters.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
We coped with Ireland seceding, the EU will cope with us leaving.
Despite that, 17m people voted for it, and very few have changed their minds.
We're passed that. Our choice, and it is a genuine choice, is between being a client, rather than a member, of the EU or crashing out of the system entirely. While we may talk glibly of no deal being better than a bad deal, no deal is a failure. There is no mandate or will for "do what it takes". Brexit was supposed to at least leave us no worse off. Given the choice between mediocrity and disaster, people will choose mediocrity. That's why I think we end up in the client status. Not many people have fully absorbed the situation we are in. I think Mrs May has, from her change in rhetoric since her Lancaster House speech. But once people understand the reality, they won't be happy about it.
I think it's more that we can't decide, and the EU aren't willing to offer us a choice.
TBF we don't know for sure that the EU will offer us the option of a client state on their terms. I think they will. The default is crash out and disaster. Then we don't have a choice. It's what it is.
If that does happen there is, of course, a number of emergency measures the UK could take, if it had the parliamentary majority to do so.
In reality, given the arithmetic, I expect the Government would fall and Corbyn would win.
A sensible deal would ultimately be made within 5-10 years because the EU would have made its point about the consequences of Leaving.
F1: race isn't live on Channel 4. May listen to it on the radio. Stupid timing, as getting up entails walking the hound, and I don't want to get up at half five on Sunday, but staying in means walking her later.
Re health of Prime Ministers, Neville Chamberlain's bowel cancer led to his death in Nov 1940, does anyone know if the diagnosis was made when he was PM?
Not until July 1940 I believe.
After I had posted, I looked at a preview of Downing St Blues, it seemed to imply diagnosis was before May 1940. I tried again 10 mins later to check, and access to that same section was locked off.
Comments
I can think of very few:-
- Kinnock's speech about Militant.
- The "lady's not for turning" speech or, to be honest, that line in it
- Thatcher's speech after the IRA bomb in Brighton: the mere fact that she turned up after such an event, looking impeccable and with fire in her belly, was pretty impressive on any level
And that's about it. IDS was over promoted. So is May. She has made a series of disastrous miscalculations and is struggling to get herself and the government out of the corner she has painted herself into. None of her possible replacements would give the government the reset it clearly needs.
At this stage, frankly, given the absolutely dismal state of the government and opposition and the fact that both seem utterly clueless and unrealistic about what they want, we'd be better off putting Brexit on hold while we work out exactly what we do want and how to get there and come back to the negotiations rather better prepared than we have been so far.
Brexit may or may not have been the right decision for the country. But the way it is being implemented is utterly incompetent, unprofessional and disastrous. That annoys me almost more than anything else.
More importantly, what's happening in Catalonia is very worrying. A liberal democracy shouldn't be in the business of sending military units to its provinces to enforce the law.
But that was cruel. This is a woman who has given her life to public service. She has a very strong reputation for integrity. She really didn't deserve that. I like to think that if I was doing this to myself my better half would have a word.
5000 across the whole country ffs
less than 10 per constituency
Really, I mean seriously
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/915570170533466113
Rudd: "OMG"
Boris: "YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS"
But the biggest problem, as you identify, is lack of a clear (and articulated) vision of where we want to be and the trade offs required to get there.
But actually I am far more concerned about the EU migrants who have 'accidentally' recieved deportation letters from the home office and are terrified for their famillies and livelihoods. I also notice that there is no shortage of deranged psychopaths who celebrate such actions as the implementation of rules and laws. They are the people with no empathy.
What does May ultimately stand to lose? her job? pride? Some people are going to lose much more because of her decisions.
Rudd: 'Poor woman! How awful for her'
Boris: 'Have I overdone it?'
I also don't agree that she has no political skills or empathy. She is unsuited to be PM and is shy and lacking in charisma. But the Hillsborough families spoke highly of her help and of her genuine concern for them. Her work on anti-slavery is worthwhile and she finally got rid of the loathsome Qatada. She was also right in what she said to the Police Federation about the treatment of black youths and, frankly, in what she said to the Tories when they were in Opposition about how they were perceived. She also did quite a lot to help women Tory candidates. I think her first speech as PM was very good. So she meant well. But she lacked the ability to follow through on it and has been utterly overwhelmed by Brexit.
May is an example of the Peter principle in action. Some people grow into a role. She has not. But, let's face it, difficult to see who would given the enormous and probably irreconcilable pressures on anyone becoming PM in the wake of the referendum result.
If Corbyn becomes PM I would expect him to be overwhelmed as well. It is far far easier to make a diagnosis of what has gone wrong than it is to come up with practical solutions which command the support of the Cabinet, MPs, voters and, in the case of negotiations, the EU.
We need a Solomon. What we have is a Frank Spencer. Waiting in the wings is "Wolfie" Smith.
“It is when tested the most that we reach deep within ourselves and find that our capacity to the challenge before us may well be limitless.”
And here’s the speech from the West Wing:
“Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we’re reminded that that capacity may well be limitless.”
There won't be quite as many goodies in future and harmonised corporation tax rates will not do Ireland any favours. But I agree that Ireland will not leave the EU.
So its clearly nothing like the West Wing version
Well done TM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-will-flee-the-country-if-conservative-party-abandons-brexit_uk_59d3a18fe4b048a443255014
Jacob Rees-Mogg Will ‘Flee The Country’ If Conservative Party Abandons Brexit
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Downing-Street-Blues-Depression-Afflictions/dp/0786448466
Cameron has said if you're a PM, and you've been rejected by the electorate, you shouldn't come back.
Osborne is having the time of his life, why should he give that up?
Davidson will stay in Scotland, but is the most likely of the three.
A big housing program was trailed in advance (the BBC yesterday, for example) as being something that would feature - and this is little more than window dressing.
The coughing is pretty well irrelevant*- we know she's a hopeless performer in front of a crowd anyway - but this is the only real chance she'll get for a reboot, and it seems to me she's blown it.
*unless it's a symptom of being genuinely too ill to continue in post, which seems doubtful
The only other time I think I’ve ever seen a PM stare into the abyss in this way was in Japan in 2003 when, days after the death of David Kelly, a reporter asked Tony Blair if he had ‘blood on your hands’ – Blair, a man never lost for words or unsure of himself, froze for a second with a look of naked terror before regaining his composure and walking away.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/the-torment-of-theresa-may/
None of us really do, if we're honest with ourselves.
Amongst many people, there is a rather lazy chain of inductive reasoning that goes like this: the government will find a way of solving the problem because they always do.
I sincerely believe that Brexit is simply beyond the capacity of any government to solve, and no politician is up to the job. It's something that we have to face up to as a nation.
Anyway, to where? Vatican City?
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/915541750088916992
She had a couple of chances to firmly grasp the nettle... and merely brushed it.
Brexit is a power grab, nothing more.
Edited extra bit: both free market (3) and run on the pound (evens) came off, proving, yet again, Conservatives are better for prosperity.
If she thinks it's a popular policy - why not actually do it properly!?
As far as I can tell, they can't accept that anyone could ever amicably leave their club for alternative arrangements, and are only interested in making an example of the UK.
Why would that make anyone want to stay?
And then she doubled down on the spite, with no sense of irony, telling him to get know the party better.
If only the majority losing May had followed her own advice.
Life does come at you fast Mrs May.
Times change.
We are simply not that important to them. We can stay or go - it is up to us, but if we go we are on our own.
That's easily dismissed as anglocentric self-importance, but it isn't.
The fact they (currently) couldn't care less about what happens once we do go is absolutely part of the problem.
This needs visionary leaders on both sides who can put the events of the last 18 months behind them, recognise the new political reality, and work together on a sustainable long-term win-win UK-EU relationship that works.
That may be formally true. (Though I suspect the real reason is that they'd much rather not get involved.).
But, come on - if the EU can be a guarantor of the Northern Ireland peace process, then surely it should be seeking to play some sort of mediation role when one of its members starts sending troops into a province, and there must be a non-negligible risk of more - possibly fatal - violence.
Just the place!
However - luck always runs out.
It's a tall order.
There is no middle way. There never was.
I don't think that will happen. Instead, we've got:
- Retain May
- Boris. (Seriously?)
- Hammond.
- Davis
- Rudd
- Rees-Mogg
... it beggars belief.
Well, picture the Hindenburg meets Chernobyl meets Three Mile Island meets The Battle of Zama meets Tron 2.
(2) That simply isn't the case. There are a variety of associate memberships and alternative models on offer between full clean break and membership.
But our crime is to have been in the club, and voted to Leave it.
In reality, given the arithmetic, I expect the Government would fall and Corbyn would win.
A sensible deal would ultimately be made within 5-10 years because the EU would have made its point about the consequences of Leaving.
*grumbles*
I've kept some fruit rotting for weeks just for this.