Regarding the discussion earlier this morning on the nature of the Conservative party, a brilliant letter in today's Guardian from Neville Westerman should be required reading...
"It is a matter of historical record that the Conservatives voted against universal health in 1948, as they voted against universal dole and universal pensions in 1909, and universal education in 1870. I remember the vicious and dishonest hostility against the NHS by the Tory party and media in 1948, which was very similar to the present attitude of the US Republicans. But Jeremy Hunt declared to conference that Conservatives have always supported the NHS. What percentage of Tory members could be so ignorant as to believe that Jeremy had any intention to speak the truth? The success of the Tory party to gain power has largely been based on its eagerness to tell blatant lies. Tory policy for 150 years has been largely inhumane, devoid of compassion, and opposed to the welfare state, but defended by lying, their “not-so-secret” weapon. When Boris Johnson reveals himself as an untrustworthy liar within his own party, that makes him the members’ favourite MP to be our PM."
Convenient misunderstanding of the nature of being an opposition, there.
Nonsense, oppositions do not have to oppose measures they support!
It is perfectly possible to support a principle while opposing the method of its implementation.
Possible yes, but not true for any of those occasions so...?
'Devoid of compassion' for 150 years is a little strong though imo. Indian Great Famine had Tories pushing for intervention while laissez-faire Liberals let millions starve. That episode should be far more prominent in our national psyche than it is.
We really need two governments: one to do Brexit and one to run all the domestic stuff.
The Brexit team should have competent people from all parties in it to work out a position that more or less works, given all the constraints.
The domestic government can get on with building houses for our organs or whatever their policy is.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a national enterprise of national importance requiring a national effort. I would have Mandelson on board, for example. I think he could be extremely helpful in finding compromises with the Commission. He knows better than almost any other Brit how they think and operate. He's offered and the government has been extremely unwise to ignore that offer.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
The Conservative party is divided between those who think that Theresa May is NBG and should go and those who think that Theresa May is NBG and must stay.
The first group is correct. She can't do the job any more and that is decisive. The Tories need to find someone around whom they can more or less unite. Everything else is going to have to be left for now. In descending order, the options seem to be Michael Gove, Amber Rudd, David Davis and Jeremy Hunt.
He's unsuitable in almost every other way, but the Conservatives should go for Michael Gove.
Personally I agree. He is the clearest and most radical thinker currently active in UK politics. But he is also extremely marmite. Would he have a working majority that he could rely on in the Commons? For all his intellect I fear the Tories need a less divisive figure than Gove.
Candidates who should be rapidly discounted: Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson and Incitatus (aka Jacob Rees-Mogg). Whatever their other virtues, none of them could unite the Conservative party.
He is the man to do something very very useful and sensible on Brexit but I can't work out the scenario whereby he would be able to do so short of defecting to the Cons and being crowned leader and PM by next Tuesday.
We really need two governments: one to do Brexit and one to run all the domestic stuff.
The Brexit team should have competent people from all parties in it to work out a position that more or less works, given all the constraints.
The domestic government can get on with building houses for our organs or whatever their policy is.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a national enterprise of national importance requiring a national effort. I would have Mandelson on board, for example. I think he could be extremely helpful in finding compromises with the Commission. He knows better than almost any other Brit how they think and operate. He's offered and the government has been extremely unwise to ignore that offer.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
We really need two governments: one to do Brexit and one to run all the domestic stuff.
The Brexit team should have competent people from all parties in it to work out a position that more or less works, given all the constraints.
The domestic government can get on with building houses for our organs or whatever their policy is.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a national enterprise of national importance requiring a national effort. I would have Mandelson on board, for example. I think he could be extremely helpful in finding compromises with the Commission. He knows better than almost any other Brit how they think and operate. He's offered and the government has been extremely unwise to ignore that offer.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
He is the man to do something very very useful and sensible on Brexit but I can't work out the scenario whereby he would be able to do so short of defecting to the Cons and being crowned leader and PM by next Tuesday.
The Conservative party is divided between those who think that Theresa May is NBG and should go and those who think that Theresa May is NBG and must stay.
The first group is correct. She can't do the job any more and that is decisive. The Tories need to find someone around whom they can more or less unite. Everything else is going to have to be left for now. In descending order, the options seem to be Michael Gove, Amber Rudd, David Davis and Jeremy Hunt.
He's unsuitable in almost every other way, but the Conservatives should go for Michael Gove.
Personally I agree. He is the clearest and most radical thinker currently active in UK politics. But he is also extremely marmite. Would he have a working majority that he could rely on in the Commons? For all his intellect I fear the Tories need a less divisive figure than Gove.
Candidates who should be rapidly discounted: Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson and Incitatus (aka Jacob Rees-Mogg). Whatever their other virtues, none of them could unite the Conservative party.
Gove or Hunt.
Hunt. Others think the NHS a millstone for Hunt. I think it's an asset. He could very quickly find a way to pledge the £350m in the long-term, for example, and he knows his subject. He also has a calm manner, is tough, can drive through a negotiation, and has a very modern family story.
Gove. Extremely clever and very hardworking. He'd simply get the whole Government moving and the job done. No, he wouldn't win an election. But he might save our skins with our chins still held high, and win a lot of respect in the process. I think he can also talk "Cameroon" which might go some way to undoing some of the damage to that wing over the last year and Osborne wouldn't go quite so hard at him either.
We really need two governments: one to do Brexit and one to run all the domestic stuff.
The Brexit team should have competent people from all parties in it to work out a position that more or less works, given all the constraints.
The domestic government can get on with building houses for our organs or whatever their policy is.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a national enterprise of national importance requiring a national effort. I would have Mandelson on board, for example. I think he could be extremely helpful in finding compromises with the Commission. He knows better than almost any other Brit how they think and operate. He's offered and the government has been extremely unwise to ignore that offer.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
The Conservative party is divided between those who think that Theresa May is NBG and should go and those who think that Theresa May is NBG and must stay.
The first group is correct. She can't do the job any more and that is decisive. The Tories need to find someone around whom they can more or less unite. Everything else is going to have to be left for now. In descending order, the options seem to be Michael Gove, Amber Rudd, David Davis and Jeremy Hunt.
He's unsuitable in almost every other way, but the Conservatives should go for Michael Gove.
Michael Gove is the opposite of a safe pair of hands. Everything he touches becomes a mess that someone else needs to sort out - hardly what the Conservative Party needs now. Jeremy Hunt is the one from that list. He is dull and relatively untouched by Brexit. The other possibility is David Davis but it's not clear he really wants the job. He seems disillusioned by Brexit - not that it is wrong in principle, but about his assumption that he could deliver one that works. A sensible Parliamentary Conservative Party would put Davis and Hunt forward to the membership.
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
Ironically it could be the EU that saves May now. In her Florence speech she made some concessions on the clear understanding that the EU would need to make some concessions to move forward. As predicted by Varoufakis, the response was to ask the UK for more concessions. As far as I can tell the EU have offered the UK nothing at all.
If the EU had been serious they would have indicated that they would compromise on the ECJ jurisdiction issue (eg accept the mixed tribunal offered by the UK), then the UK could have conceded a bit more on the bill and the path to phase 2 would have been open. Asking the UK to accept the whole Brexit bill in phase 1 was never going to happen and May made it very clear in backchannels that 20 billion plus an agreement to discuss the rest was as far as she would go. As usual, the EU just pocketed that and asked for more.
It is time to terminate the article 50 talks as there is nothing that can be achieved any more.
TBH I think if May comes out and terminates the talks and (somehow) can put together a credible plan for proceeding with a view to being ready for WTO in March 2019, I think she would be secure. Even remainer Amber Rudd said it was over to the EU to see how they would respond - the response is pretty clear. Once we move past the trauma of accepting there will be no deal, I think everyone will start to focus on what needs to be done and move forward. If she plays the EU negotiation game she will never win and will eventually get the blame for something that could never have been prevented. If she faces up to the reality of the situation she may see it is time to stop the farce and focus on the UKs plan for the future.
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
Is that what attracted you to the party in the first place?
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
I voted leave. I want out. I also want a deal with the EU. The shape of that deal I am completely relaxed about provided it is the best possible for the UK. That means free trade and continued co-operation in a range of spheres which means money. Fine.
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
I voted leave. I want out. I also want a deal wjth the EU. The shape of that deal I am completely relaxed about provided it is the best possible for the UK. That means free trade and continued co-operation in a range of spheres which means money. Fine.
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
What exactly didn't you like about the EU? The influence we had while a member?
It is time to terminate the article 50 talks as there is nothing that can be achieved any more.
You realise that stating upfront that we plan to leave with no deal would repudiate the Good Friday Agreement, among many other things? It's simply a fantasy.
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
Is that what attracted you to the party in the first place?
It proves the Party has Divine protection. It stays afloat, despite its leaders' best efforts to sink it.
Gove would absolutely electrify Labour. It's hard to think of someone more antithetical to the Corbynites. It would certainly make for entertaining politics over the next few years, but I wouldn't have any confidence that Gove would come out best in a GE vs Corbyn.
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
The Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch. But come on it's obvious she's had it.
The quicker they get on and lance the boil the better.
May is lucky to be facing Shapps. Very weak this morning.
The Napoleon of modern politics? Weak, vacillating, brutal, arrogant, egotistical, ambitious and incompetent, but thrashing everyone around her because remarkably they are even more useless?
A little unfair, I feel.
Napoleon was a proven winner who reshaped Europe. And May isn’t.
Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Waterloo"
The Conservative party is divided between those who think that Theresa May is NBG and should go and those who think that Theresa May is NBG and must stay.
The first group is correct. She can't do the job any more and that is decisive. The Tories need to find someone around whom they can more or less unite. Everything else is going to have to be left for now. In descending order, the options seem to be Michael Gove, Amber Rudd, David Davis and Jeremy Hunt.
He's unsuitable in almost every other way, but the Conservatives should go for Michael Gove.
Michael Gove is the opposite of a safe pair of hands. Everything he touches becomes a mess that someone else needs to sort out - hardly what the Conservative Party needs now. Jeremy Hunt is the one from that list. He is dull and relatively untouched by Brexit. The other possibility is David Davis but it's not clear he really wants the job. He seems disillusioned by Brexit - not that it is wrong in principle, but about his assumption that he could deliver one that works. A sensible Parliamentary Conservative Party would put Davis and Hunt forward to the membership.
I have thought of a further problem for Davis. He will have to sign on the dotted line within the next few weeks to the EU Article 50 demands on payments, citizens rights including ECJ oversight and something on Ireland, so that the UK can have a "transition" period. Without these two years delay to Brexit, the whole project is sunk. Those inevitable compromises to the Brexit narrative will go down like a bag of cold sick with the membership. That's the real reason May is still there. However if 48 MPs send in a letter, May's gone. And she is also only hanging on because of a beyond the call of duty sense of responsibility.
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
I prefer scorching socialism from the face of the earth.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
I voted leave. I want out. I also want a deal wjth the EU. The shape of that deal I am completely relaxed about provided it is the best possible for the UK. That means free trade and continued co-operation in a range of spheres which means money. Fine.
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
What exactly didn't you like about the EU? The influence we had while a member?
It is undemocratic. Its methods of lawmaking are a disgrace and subservient to special interest groups. It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency. It seeks conformity for the sake of it and fails to recognise the strength in diversity. Its Parliament is a joke and demonstrates vividly the failure in seeking to establish a single demos.
But it also has its good points. I wish it well once we have left. I really do.
Mr. Z, my apologies, I'm a bit sleepy/distracted. Consider yourself chastised.
Mr. Eagles, it does amuse me that Praetorian Guard is used as political shorthand for diehard loyalists.
That was the concept, of a sort, wasn't it? That they themselves later became compromised in coups can't be divorced from how it happened (and that the Praetorian developed into an institution in their own right, which a leader's political 'bodyguards' of course aren't being much closer to the origin of the personal protection squad). And frankly, if a leader behaves badly enough, they end up forfeiting the right to rely on anyone.
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
I prefer scorching socialism from the face of the earth.
Nay Mr Eagles. It`s much more fun bashing Tories. Even Conservatives prefer to do that.
The only one who doesn`t is Mrs Fitalass. I just don`t understand her at all.
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
I prefer scorching socialism from the face of the earth.
You'd best get rid of the present government pretty sharpish then - they are about to set energy price caps and start the construction of publicly-owned housing!
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
I voted leave. I want out. I also want a deal wjth the EU. The shape of that deal I am completely relaxed about provided it is the best possible for the UK. That means free trade and continued co-operation in a range of spheres which means money. Fine.
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
What exactly didn't you like about the EU? The influence we had while a member?
It is undemocratic. Its methods of lawmaking are a disgrace and subservient to special interest groups. It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency. It seeks conformity for the sake of it and fails to recognise the strength in diversity. Its Parliament is a joke and demonstrates vividly the failure in seeking to establish a single demos.
But it also has its good points. I wish it well once we have left. I really do.
bizarre but of course a discussion long and often rehearsed on here.
I think Theresa and Philip will spend the weekend considering their options (they have none) and she'll announce her intention to resign as Con leader (but stay on as PM) on Monday.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
I voted leave. I want out. I also want a deal wjth the EU. The shape of that deal I am completely relaxed about provided it is the best possible for the UK. That means free trade and continued co-operation in a range of spheres which means money. Fine.
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
What exactly didn't you like about the EU? The influence we had while a member?
Voting, polling Blogging, trolling And now I'm all alone In Brexit Land My only home
I think that Conservatives are never happier than when they're fighting each other. It's why they do it so often, and have done throughout most of my adulthood.
I prefer scorching socialism from the face of the earth.
You'd best get rid of the present government pretty sharpish then - they are about to set energy price caps and start the construction of publicly-owned housing!
Mr. Z, my apologies, I'm a bit sleepy/distracted. Consider yourself chastised.
Mr. Eagles, it does amuse me that Praetorian Guard is used as political shorthand for diehard loyalists.
That was the concept, of a sort, wasn't it? That they themselves later became compromised in coups can't be divorced from how it happened (and that the Praetorian developed into an institution in their own right, which a leader's political 'bodyguards' of course aren't being much closer to the origin of the personal protection squad). And frankly, if a leader behaves badly enough, they end up forfeiting the right to rely on anyone.
Gibbon mentions somewhere the theory that the later empire should actually be seen as a republic, in which only the guard had a vote.
We really need two governments: one to do Brexit and one to run all the domestic stuff.
The Brexit team should have competent people from all parties in it to work out a position that more or less works, given all the constraints.
The domestic government can get on with building houses for our organs or whatever their policy is.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a national enterprise of national importance requiring a national effort. I would have Mandelson on board, for example. I think he could be extremely helpful in finding compromises with the Commission. He knows better than almost any other Brit how they think and operate. He's offered and the government has been extremely unwise to ignore that offer.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
A perfect diagnosis so surprising that you then go on to suggest the solution is Gove. No one with the possible exeption of his wife and Boris could be thought of as more divisive. 'Dead Ringers' has characterised him perfectly. I can only think you want the government and Brexit to fall -as I do- and this seems the sure-fire way of doing it
My main concern with the Tories isn't particularly Mrs May, or even Brexit. It is the serious lack of vision and scope for the country. 5,000 council houses and an Ed Miliband freeze cap on energy prices. I mean really ?! Is that the best they can come up with ?
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others. Our membership has slowed down and complicated the unification of the Euro bloc and its institutions with the institutions of the EU. I expect that to change.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
I voted leave. I want out. I also want a deal wjth the EU. The shape of that deal I am completely relaxed about provided it is the best possible for the UK. That means free trade and continued co-operation in a range of spheres which means money. Fine.
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
What exactly didn't you like about the EU? The influence we had while a member?
It is undemocratic. Its methods of lawmaking are a disgrace and subservient to special interest groups. It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency. It seeks conformity for the sake of it and fails to recognise the strength in diversity. Its Parliament is a joke and demonstrates vividly the failure in seeking to establish a single demos.
But it also has its good points. I wish it well once we have left. I really do.
bizarre but of course a discussion long and often rehearsed on here.
It's not bizarre. David's issues are real. The EU is a glass half-full construct. The question is whether half a glass is better than no beer at all. The Brexit premise was that the off-licence had loads of beer so the customers charged out of the bar, to find it shut.
Gove would absolutely electrify Labour. It's hard to think of someone more antithetical to the Corbynites. It would certainly make for entertaining politics over the next few years, but I wouldn't have any confidence that Gove would come out best in a GE vs Corbyn.
It's hard to think of many of those who voted Labour last time because of Brexit switching their votes back to the Tories with Gove as leader. And his very dry economic outlook may drive a few first-time Tory voters in the seats the Tories won from Labour in June back home. That said, Corbyn is Corbyn and a firewall. The biggest disaster for the Tories would be if he went and was replaced by someone like Emily Thornberry.
@theobertram: *If*, after May, members of the Cabinet merely swap seats, Labour will benefit. But if new generation comes in that could be game-changing.
We really need two governments: one to do Brexit and one to run all the domestic stuff.
The Brexit team should have competent people from all parties in it to work out a position that more or less works, given all the constraints.
The domestic government can get on with building houses for our organs or whatever their policy is.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a national enterprise of national importance requiring a national effort. I would have Mandelson on board, for example. I think he could be extremely helpful in finding compromises with the Commission. He knows better than almost any other Brit how they think and operate. He's offered and the government has been extremely unwise to ignore that offer.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
Could not agree. May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others. Our membership has slowed down and complicated the unification of the Euro bloc and its institutions with the institutions of the EU. I expect that to change.
What you've described is a world away from a single budget. The EU budget is currently 1% of GDP. How much do you expect it to rise to in your future vision?
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
My main concern with the Tories isn't particularly Mrs May, or even Brexit. It is the serious lack of vision and scope for the country. 5,000 council houses and an Ed Miliband freeze cap on energy prices. I mean really ?! Is that the best they can come up with ?
Corbyn will be in if they're not careful.
How can they have "vision" without a majority?
Let's say they pledge to build 500,000 new houses. That will inevitably lead to rebellions from MP's in affected consistences and there's no majority to off-set the rebellions.
May is lucky to be facing Shapps. Very weak this morning.
The Napoleon of modern politics? Weak, vacillating, brutal, arrogant, egotistical, ambitious and incompetent, but thrashing everyone around her because remarkably they are even more useless?
A little unfair, I feel.
Napoleon was a proven winner who reshaped Europe. And May isn’t.
Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Waterloo"
He still reshaped Europe and left a legacy which survives to this day.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
I voted leave. I want out. I also want a deal wjth the EU. The shape of that deal I am completely relaxed about provided it is the best possible for the UK. That means free trade and continued co-operation in a range of spheres which means money. Fine.
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
What exactly didn't you like about the EU? The influence we had while a member?
It is undemocratic. Its methods of lawmaking are a disgrace and subservient to special interest groups. It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency. It seeks conformity for the sake of it and fails to recognise the strength in diversity. Its Parliament is a joke and demonstrates vividly the failure in seeking to establish a single demos.
But it also has its good points. I wish it well once we have left. I really do.
Well there's apparently a mini housing boom here in the South of France at the moment. It seems the Brit's are going to miss the lack of democracy and the disgraceful subservience to special interest groups and the conformity for the sake of it....Though truthfully I don't think many of those fleeing would recognise your view from Dundee of the way things are in the EU.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
On the basis that we are leaving, I think the time has come for the Tory Leavers to own the process in its entirety. Boris as PM, Gove as Chancellor fulfilling their promises of sunlit uplands with absolutely no downsides, and being held to account for their performance. No hiding away, no briefing against others, no saying we would do it differently, but taking responsibility for the delivery of what they told us Brexit would be ...
I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment. EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU. British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. Britain is and always will be a great European power, offering top-table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defence to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing – all the things we need to do together to make our world safer.
May is lucky to be facing Shapps. Very weak this morning.
The Napoleon of modern politics? Weak, vacillating, brutal, arrogant, egotistical, ambitious and incompetent, but thrashing everyone around her because remarkably they are even more useless?
A little unfair, I feel.
Napoleon was a proven winner who reshaped Europe. And May isn’t.
Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Waterloo"
He still reshaped Europe and left a legacy which survives to this day.
He reshaped Europe up until the Congress of Vienna.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
They would have lost it by a considerable margin had ABJ been in charge of Lab. Dear God I might have thought about voting for Lab myself with someone sensible centre Left-ish in charge with a corresponding mildly redistributive set of policies.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others. Our membership has slowed down and complicated the unification of the Euro bloc and its institutions with the institutions of the EU. I expect that to change.
Do US states', cities' and counties' budgets need approval from DC?
Gove would absolutely electrify Labour. It's hard to think of someone more antithetical to the Corbynites. It would certainly make for entertaining politics over the next few years, but I wouldn't have any confidence that Gove would come out best in a GE vs Corbyn.
Gove's revolution of the education system is probably the most effective ministerial action in decades.
He should be involved in Brexit - get Cummings back in as his henchman and break the wheel of the negotiations.
Who on earth are these MPs crawling out the woodwork to defend May? If they can't see that the longer she stays the more damage she does..
Also wonder if the current old guard (I.e. the cabinet) know the game is up and they're about to be swept away by the new intake
Remember Tallyrand's comment that "Diplomacy is mostly about saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock...". Things will probably get rather heated once the plotters think that they will not get bitten.
It is interesting to watch, in a detached way, but it does the country no favours at all. It just pushes us closer and closer to WTO cliff edges.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others. Our membership has slowed down and complicated the unification of the Euro bloc and its institutions with the institutions of the EU. I expect that to change.
What you've described is a world away from a single budget. The EU budget is currently 1% of GDP. How much do you expect it to rise to in your future vision?
Its not that all the money will be spent centrally. It is that elected governments will lose control of their macro economic policy. They will have to make cuts when told to do so, to harmonise tax rates, to limit their investment in infrastructure etc. And they will have to do so at the behest of undemocratic institutions. This is happening already and is necessary for the EZ to work effectively.
Who knows? It might work. Germany did well when the Bundesbank set most German economic policy. But it is not what I want for my country. If we choose to elect idiots like Corbyn or Brown then that is our right.
He should be involved in Brexit - get Cummings back in as his henchman and break the wheel of the negotiations.
One of his last tweets yesterday...
@odysseanproject: "Beating Corbyn isn't the hard thing. It's getting at least a beta PM with an alpha team into no10. Do that, JC will fade as a problem"
Any input he has may also help McLaren, however. His job sounds like it's chassis-focused, but if he has any inside info on engines it's hard to imagine he'll forget to mention it to Renault.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others.
This isn't true at all. US state budgets don't need federal approval. Who do you think's getting a free ride? Greece???
What they will do is bring in methods of fiscal transfer, some of them disguised as programs that benefit the whole EU, like border security and green power generation. They'll also doubtless beef up regional development funds etc. But central control of budgets isn't necessary; If you spend too much, you run out of money, and the damage that inflicts is overwhelmingly inflicted on yourself, as the Greeks have found.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a national enterprise of national importance requiring a national effort. I would have Mandelson on board, for example. I think he could be extremely helpful in finding compromises with the Commission. He knows better than almost any other Brit how they think and operate. He's offered and the government has been extremely unwise to ignore that offer.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
Blimey! I made my suggestion half in jest and look where we are.
I think there may be a way of reconciling the positions but it involves speaking some hard truths to the voters here.
Any agreement with another state or entity such as the EU will require some way of adjudicating disputes, such as a court. We can have a court with which we are familiar adjudicating on such disputes or some other court, such as those US tribunals @rcs100 tells us about, which have at least as many issues with them re accountability / transparency as the ECJ. But it is a fantasy to assume that there will be no court.
Given that, better to have a court with which we are familiar and to have clear boundaries about the matters which fall within its jurisdiction than to try and get another court involved. The option of no court at all simply doesn’t exist. Even if we fell under WTO rules a dispute would have to be resolved somewhere.
Half a loaf is usually better than starvation and ideological purity.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The elections was "won" by the Tories, as the perception given out by the Political Classes, Media and Westminster Bubble that Labour under Corbyn was unelectable and would be wiped out. That it didn't happen has boomeranged and hit the Tories in the back of the collective head. Too many now look at Corbyn as the PM in Waiting! The Tories, have gone out of their way to lose the next GE, whenever it is called.
My main concern with the Tories isn't particularly Mrs May, or even Brexit. It is the serious lack of vision and scope for the country. 5,000 council houses and an Ed Miliband freeze cap on energy prices. I mean really ?! Is that the best they can come up with ?
Corbyn will be in if they're not careful.
How can they have "vision" without a majority?
Let's say they pledge to build 500,000 new houses. That will inevitably lead to rebellions from MP's in affected consistences and there's no majority to off-set the rebellions.
The lack of vision was apparent well before Mrs May lost the hard won majority. There was a noticeable absence of policy after she became PM bar the rejigged energy policy and vague waffle re boardroom quotas and a red white and blue brexit.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
A single budget? No national taxes at all? Even the US isn't run like that.
Oh I am sure that there will be local taxes. But when the next crisis comes in the Euro, and it will come, all national budgets and deficits will need central approval. You really cannot run a single currency properly on any other basis as Greece has shown. It cannot be a free ride for some at the expense of others. Our membership has slowed down and complicated the unification of the Euro bloc and its institutions with the institutions of the EU. I expect that to change.
What you've described is a world away from a single budget. The EU budget is currently 1% of GDP. How much do you expect it to rise to in your future vision?
Its not that all the money will be spent centrally. It is that elected governments will lose control of their macro economic policy. They will have to make cuts when told to do so, to harmonise tax rates, to limit their investment in infrastructure etc. And they will have to do so at the behest of undemocratic institutions. This is happening already and is necessary for the EZ to work effectively.
Yes, yes, yes. Unless they negotiated an opt out, obvs.
May is lucky to be facing Shapps. Very weak this morning.
The Napoleon of modern politics? Weak, vacillating, brutal, arrogant, egotistical, ambitious and incompetent, but thrashing everyone around her because remarkably they are even more useless?
A little unfair, I feel.
Napoleon was a proven winner who reshaped Europe. And May isn’t.
Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Waterloo"
He still reshaped Europe and left a legacy which survives to this day.
He reshaped Europe up until the Congress of Vienna.
The Napoleonic Code.
The dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire which kickstarted the drive to German unification under Prussia.
The collapse of Hapsburg authority in the Italian states, which similarly led to Italian unification.
May's handling of Brexit has been divisive and thoroughly abject - and she was being cheered to the rafters for it by almost all Tories up until 7th June.
I think lots of Tory MPs assume May is some kind of shield against the toxicity of Brexit.
They are wrong
If Brexit was toxic, then May's figures wouldn't have been stratospheric until April and rubbish since June. It wasn't a policy or environmental change on Brexit that produced that collapse.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
The Conservatives' job can be stated very simply: it is to deliver the successful Brexit they promised. If they don't, voters will go elsewhere. The immediate issue that needs sorting in the next month or so is, will the Government sign up to EU Article 50 demands, including some tens of billions of euros, ECJ oversight on citizen rights and an arrangement for Ireland in exchange for a two year delay in Brexit? If yes, it exposes the false premises behind Brexit; if no, Britain will crash out into outer space and the Brexit project is sunk. There are some tough decisions to make and they need to be made in the next few weeks.
I certainly agree that Brexit is a nationao longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
It's only the right approach when it's capable of being made true. This disgraceful government has done everything it can to cement the divisions rather than bring the nation together.
I agree. But we can't go on that way. A new leader can bring new thinking. I am far from sure that May can. She alternates between gratuitous rudeness and defensiveness. Having the 3 Brexiteers in charge has not worked. It was never going to. It was the wrong approach. If we keep up this conversation I fear for my keyboard, I really do. Christ, do we need some imagination and brain power applied to this.
There is no new thinking. There is hard Brexit or there is single market and customs union. Either way you are once more splitting the country down the middle. I hear @AlastairMeeks and his point about cementing divisions, but I can't see how the two positions could be reconciled.
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
Blimey! I made my suggestion half in jest and look where we are.
I think there may be a way of reconciling the positions but it involves speaking some hard truths to the voters here.
Any agreement with another state or entity such as the EU will require some way of adjudicating disputes, such as a court. We can have a court with which we are familiar adjudicating on such disputes or some other court, such as those US tribunals @rcs100 tells us about, which have at least as many issues with them re accountability / transparency as the ECJ. But it is a fantasy to assume that there will be no court.
Given that, better to have a court with which we are familiar and to have clear boundaries about the matters which fall within its jurisdiction than to try and get another court involved. The option of no court at all simply doesn’t exist. Even if we fell under WTO rules a dispute would have to be resolved somewhere.
Half a loaf is usually better than starvation and ideological purity.
You lost me at "it involves speaking some hard truths to the voters here."
What's interesting about 30 rebels is that they don't have the votes to call (and certainly not win) a leadership election. But they do have the votes to take the Prime Minister down at any time of their choosing, simply by abstaining on a Commons vote causing the PM to lose. There are surely many such votes where her authority would be shattered, not least the budget coming up which is likely to be tough anyway. This surely gives them far more power in the House than they do in the party?
Comments
'Devoid of compassion' for 150 years is a little strong though imo. Indian Great Famine had Tories pushing for intervention while laissez-faire Liberals let millions starve. That episode should be far more prominent in our national psyche than it is.
At Conference Davidson said we are no longer leavers or remainers (sadly she does not seem to be an aficionado of PB) but Brits. That is the right approach. Bringing in a strong remainer such as Mandelson to help shape the deal would be an important step in the right direction.
Wasn’t there a PB lunch the wonderful @Southam Observer was meant to be organising - with OGH’s blessing, of course?
He is the man to do something very very useful and sensible on Brexit but I can't work out the scenario whereby he would be able to do so short of defecting to the Cons and being crowned leader and PM by next Tuesday.
Who can forget him crying like a disgraced televangelist over John Bercow.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/916213254426329088
Hunt. Others think the NHS a millstone for Hunt. I think it's an asset. He could very quickly find a way to pledge the £350m in the long-term, for example, and he knows his subject. He also has a calm manner, is tough, can drive through a negotiation, and has a very modern family story.
Gove. Extremely clever and very hardworking. He'd simply get the whole Government moving and the job done. No, he wouldn't win an election. But he might save our skins with our chins still held high, and win a lot of respect in the process. I think he can also talk "Cameroon" which might go some way to undoing some of the damage to that wing over the last year and Osborne wouldn't go quite so hard at him either.
Gove, or Hunt.
Meanwhile “loner” Green Shapps resigned in disgrace....
"Just a bit of ECJ oversight"..."reluctantly operating under WTO rules"...
It doesn't work.
Mr. Eagles, it does amuse me that Praetorian Guard is used as political shorthand for diehard loyalists.
If the EU had been serious they would have indicated that they would compromise on the ECJ jurisdiction issue (eg accept the mixed tribunal offered by the UK), then the UK could have conceded a bit more on the bill and the path to phase 2 would have been open. Asking the UK to accept the whole Brexit bill in phase 1 was never going to happen and May made it very clear in backchannels that 20 billion plus an agreement to discuss the rest was as far as she would go. As usual, the EU just pocketed that and asked for more.
It is time to terminate the article 50 talks as there is nothing that can be achieved any more.
TBH I think if May comes out and terminates the talks and (somehow) can put together a credible plan for proceeding with a view to being ready for WTO in March 2019, I think she would be secure. Even remainer Amber Rudd said it was over to the EU to see how they would respond - the response is pretty clear. Once we move past the trauma of accepting there will be no deal, I think everyone will start to focus on what needs to be done and move forward. If she plays the EU negotiation game she will never win and will eventually get the blame for something that could never have been prevented. If she faces up to the reality of the situation she may see it is time to stop the farce and focus on the UKs plan for the future.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dh00unjlow/YG Trackers - Best Prime Minister_W.pdf
It’s been flat at 37 since then.
A. George Osborne told him to!
(I thank you!)
The priorities are the first step and the deal. Once we have taken that step everything else can evolve at a more leisurely pace over time. We need pragmatism and brains. We do not need ideologues.
The quicker they get on and lance the boil the better.
Also wonder if the current old guard (I.e. the cabinet) know the game is up and they're about to be swept away by the new intake
And Cameron’s “Best PM” rating was in the 30s for most of his premiership:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7rj2tjjm1c/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-050515.pdf
Its methods of lawmaking are a disgrace and subservient to special interest groups.
It is heading towards a superstate with a single budget and a single currency.
It seeks conformity for the sake of it and fails to recognise the strength in diversity.
Its Parliament is a joke and demonstrates vividly the failure in seeking to establish a single demos.
But it also has its good points. I wish it well once we have left. I really do.
Now YouGov give a binary option, in his day they offered a Clegg option.
Of course YouGov in those days had too many Labour respondents and too few Tory ones which skewed the results.
The only one who doesn`t is Mrs Fitalass. I just don`t understand her at all.
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
5,000 council houses and an Ed Miliband freeze cap on energy prices. I mean really ?!
Is that the best they can come up with ?
Corbyn will be in if they're not careful.
They are wrong
Let's say they pledge to build 500,000 new houses. That will inevitably lead to rebellions from MP's in affected consistences and there's no majority to off-set the rebellions.
Brexit is not doing the government any favours because to most people it's not a first-order issue, because it's not going terribly well (also because it is having an impact on first-order questions like the economy). But there's no way out of it. It has to be done and with a lot of the eventual outcome dependent on the EU, the success of it is far from within the hands of the UK government.
But toxic? No, the Tories wouldn't have won the election after the worst campaign ever had that been the case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41522130
I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment. EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.
British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. Britain is and always will be a great European power, offering top-table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defence to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing – all the things we need to do together to make our world safer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/
The problem is that there are two clear threats: Brexit and Corbyn. What might be good for dealing with one is not necessarily good for the other.
He should be involved in Brexit - get Cummings back in as his henchman and break the wheel of the negotiations.
It is interesting to watch, in a detached way, but it does the country no favours at all. It just pushes us closer and closer to WTO cliff edges.
Who knows? It might work. Germany did well when the Bundesbank set most German economic policy. But it is not what I want for my country. If we choose to elect idiots like Corbyn or Brown then that is our right.
@odysseanproject: "Beating Corbyn isn't the hard thing. It's getting at least a beta PM with an alpha team into no10. Do that, JC will fade as a problem"
Any input he has may also help McLaren, however. His job sounds like it's chassis-focused, but if he has any inside info on engines it's hard to imagine he'll forget to mention it to Renault.
What they will do is bring in methods of fiscal transfer, some of them disguised as programs that benefit the whole EU, like border security and green power generation. They'll also doubtless beef up regional development funds etc. But central control of budgets isn't necessary; If you spend too much, you run out of money, and the damage that inflicts is overwhelmingly inflicted on yourself, as the Greeks have found.
I think there may be a way of reconciling the positions but it involves speaking some hard truths to the voters here.
Any agreement with another state or entity such as the EU will require some way of adjudicating disputes, such as a court. We can have a court with which we are familiar adjudicating on such disputes or some other court, such as those US tribunals @rcs100 tells us about, which have at least as many issues with them re accountability / transparency as the ECJ. But it is a fantasy to assume that there will be no court.
Given that, better to have a court with which we are familiar and to have clear boundaries about the matters which fall within its jurisdiction than to try and get another court involved. The option of no court at all simply doesn’t exist. Even if we fell under WTO rules a dispute would have to be resolved somewhere.
Half a loaf is usually better than starvation and ideological purity.
Thanks for clearing that up.....
The dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire which kickstarted the drive to German unification under Prussia.
The collapse of Hapsburg authority in the Italian states, which similarly led to Italian unification.
I could go on.
Ain't gonna happen. Never has.
And the country returned their verdict.
The damage inflicted by Brexit on the Tory party will make the ERM debacle look like a mild sprain in comparison