At the moment the only reason to vote Cons is because we don't want a Venezuela experiment to be conducted in the UK.
Assuming 90% (Nick?) of the PLP don't want that either it leaves the Cons hugely vulnerable to a change of leadership and pivot away from Corbynite Marxist-ist fantasy.
Quite an amazing state of British politics.
We might become a basket case economy because the Tories deliver a hard Brexit.
I know hard/WTO Brexit gives the wood to some Leavers, but it really shouldn’t.
Agreed, and frankly any talk of Venzuela is just lazy 'reds-under-the-bed' stuff.
Nothing in the Labour manifesto is any more radical than most European countries currently already adopt successfully. You may say "ah, but once in power Labour will ditch their manifesto and implement a marxist policy agenda" but really? - how's that ever going to get through a HoC vote?
No, the biggest threat to Britain's future right now is a 'no deal' hard Brexit. IMO May & Hammond know that and I suspect it is increasingly dawning on Davis, Gove & Johnson.
But of course the EU27 know it too, hence they have no need to soften their hard line. If only we had adopted a more open stance at the outset, rather than getting the EU27 backs up!
The more I consider it, the more culpable Cameron looks. Setting aside his whole approach to the EU-ref, once the vote was in he should have stayed to deliver the consequences, rather than run away. He could have dictated a sensible soft-brexit.
Too late now, I fear - either we sign-up to a solution entirely dictated by the EU (still the best option) or we face 20 years of economic disaster.
may now begging the EU for a deal we can sell to the British public. Why would the EU give a toss about what the British public will or won't buy?
Because if the public don't buy it then it's a no deal Brexit, the effects of which will go well beyond a £20bn or so shortfall in their accounts.
But they are much better placed than us to take a hit. And they actually get a long term benefit - riddance of a dissident partner.
What do we get? A worse deal than we had and a very iffy future.
They'll offer something, just enough for us to prefer it to no deal at all. But they won't give much, or care much if we refuse.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
At the moment the only reason to vote Cons is because we don't want a Venezuela experiment to be conducted in the UK.
Assuming 90% (Nick?) of the PLP don't want that either it leaves the Cons hugely vulnerable to a change of leadership and pivot away from Corbynite Marxist-ist fantasy.
Quite an amazing state of British politics.
We might become a basket case economy because the Tories deliver a hard Brexit.
I know hard/WTO Brexit gives the wood to some Leavers, but it really shouldn’t.
Agreed, and frankly any talk of Venzuela is just lazy 'reds-under-the-bed' stuff.
Nothing in the Labour manifesto is any more radical than most European countries currently already adopt successfully. You may say "ah, but once in power Labour will ditch their manifesto and implement a marxist policy agenda" but really? - how's that ever going to get through a HoC vote?
No, the biggest threat to Britain's future right now is a 'no deal' hard Brexit. IMO May & Hammond know that and I suspect it is increasingly dawning on Davis, Gove & Johnson.
But of course the EU27 know it too, hence they have no need to soften their hard line. If only we had adopted a more open stance at the outset, rather than getting the EU27 backs up!
The more I consider it, the more culpable Cameron looks. Setting aside his whole approach to the EU-ref, once the vote was in he should have stayed to deliver the consequences, rather than run away. He could have dictated a sensible soft-brexit.
Too late now, I fear - either we sign-up to a solution entirely dictated by the EU (still the best option) or we face 20 years of economic disaster.
may now begging the EU for a deal we can sell to the British public. Why would the EU give a toss about what the British public will or won't buy?
Because if the public don't buy it then it's a no deal Brexit, the effects of which will go well beyond a £20bn or so shortfall in their accounts.
The public aren't going to get a say on it.
They are at GE 2022
Too late mate. We will be up Barking Creek in a leaky conveyance without means of propulsion by then.
Upstream of Barking Creek, it's the River Roding, much calmer
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
What is to disagree with ? She seems confident a deal can be done.
A few on here will run out of Kleenex months before then.
At the moment the only reason to vote Cons is because we don't want a Venezuela experiment to be conducted in the UK.
Assuming 90% (Nick?) of the PLP don't want that either it leaves the Cons hugely vulnerable to a change of leadership and pivot away from Corbynite Marxist-ist fantasy.
Quite an amazing state of British politics.
We might become a basket case economy because the Tories deliver a hard Brexit.
I know hard/WTO Brexit gives the wood to some Leavers, but it really shouldn’t.
Agreed, and frankly any talk of Venzuela is just lazy 'reds-under-the-bed' stuff.
Nothing in the Labour manifesto is any more radical than most European countries currently already adopt successfully. You may say "ah, but once in power Labour will ditch their manifesto and implement a marxist policy agenda" but really? - how's that ever going to get through a HoC vote?
No, the biggest threat to Britain's future right now is a 'no deal' hard Brexit. IMO May & Hammond know that and I suspect it is increasingly dawning on Davis, Gove & Johnson.
But of course the EU27 know it too, hence they have no need to soften their hard line. If only we had adopted a more open stance at the outset, rather than getting the EU27 backs up!
The more I consider it, the more culpable Cameron looks. Setting aside his whole approach to the EU-ref, once the vote was in he should have stayed to deliver the consequences, rather than run away. He could have dictated a sensible soft-brexit.
Too late now, I fear - either we sign-up to a solution entirely dictated by the EU (still the best option) or we face 20 years of economic disaster.
may now begging the EU for a deal we can sell to the British public. Why would the EU give a toss about what the British public will or won't buy?
Because if the public don't buy it then it's a no deal Brexit, the effects of which will go well beyond a £20bn or so shortfall in their accounts.
The public aren't going to get a say on it.
They are at GE 2022
Too late mate. We will be up Barking Creek in a leaky conveyance without means of propulsion by then.
Upstream of Barking Creek, it's the River Roding, much calmer
It's a delightful little tributary, much loved by me and my pooch. Pleaase God we all find a similarly happy haven.
On the other side of the pond, the Dow is completely steaming ahead too despite all the Donny chatter. Though neither the Democrats or Republicans are an existential threat to private industry there.
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls. I am self-employed and 80% of the income for my small business comes from overseas, so for me this could be the single most damaging thing a government could do. And of course it would be a rude awakening for the entire country, who have got used to routine foreign holidays and easy business travel. And the immigrants who form a large part of Labour's base vote may no longer be able to send money home or even visit.
I think it's a mistake to assume that middle of the road voters' concerns about Corbyn and McDonnell consist entirely of worries about their views of the IRA and Venezuela.
Because if the public don't buy it then it's a no deal Brexit, the effects of which will go well beyond a £20bn or so shortfall in their accounts.
Much of our political class are (pretending to be) perfectly happy with the prospect of the effect on us of a no-deal brexit. I find it impossible to imagine that the economic effects of hard brexit on the 27 (leaving aside the divorce payment) would be more than 10% as damaging to the EU as a whole, or any given member state, as they would be to the UK, so if we aren't worried (or are pretending not to be) why would they be? Similarly, we can say (and it's a reasonable claim) that sovereignty issues are as or more important than mere money, but the EU also has a quasi-sovereign status to protect. UK sovereignty is an attractive but purely ornamental family heirloom which looks nice on the dining room table, but it's not as if the Northern Isles are going to secede and march on King's Landing if the ornament is accidentally broken. The EU has real, concrete sovereignty issues going on all the time in eg Greece, Poland, Hungary, Spain and us. If sovereignty issues matter to us why would they not matter a fortiori a hell of a lot more to Brussels?
It can't be easy to manage it though with the lifestyle of a senior politician, let alone if you are THE most senior, and in your 60s. Look at what happened to Diane Abbott in the election campaign. I'm surprised May's health didn't figure much in the leadership election - were it not for the particular circumstances of the election I think it probably would have.
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls. I am self-employed and 80% of the income for my small business comes from overseas, so for me this could be the single most damaging thing a government could do. And of course it would be a rude awakening for the entire country, who have got used to routine foreign holidays and easy business travel. And the immigrants who form a large part of Labour's base vote may no longer be able to send money home or even visit.
I think it's a mistake to assume that middle of the road voters' concerns about Corbyn and McDonnell consist entirely of worries about their views of the IRA and Venezuela.
And these 'middle of the road voters' are not at all displeased with the reality of Brexit?
I am one such voter, and I can tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
Thanks Dave, thanks Teresa, thanks all you spineless MPs who let the country take this disastrous course.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls. I am self-employed and 80% of the income for my small business comes from overseas, so for me this could be the single most damaging thing a government could do. And of course it would be a rude awakening for the entire country, who have got used to routine foreign holidays and easy business travel. And the immigrants who form a large part of Labour's base vote may no longer be able to send money home or even visit.
I think it's a mistake to assume that middle of the road voters' concerns about Corbyn and McDonnell consist entirely of worries about their views of the IRA and Venezuela.
And these 'middle of the road voters' are not at all displeased with the reality of Brexit?
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
Thanks Dave, thanks Teresa, thanks all you spineless MPs who let the country take this disastrous course.
I was/am a staunch Remainer and certainly am displeased about Brexit. But for me personally the impact of exchange controls would be far more disastrous than anything that could feasibly happen from Brexit. And whilst maybe not so disastrous for most, it will have a profound impact on the vast majority of lives and make a majority of the population quite angry if they lose their easy foreign holidays. This isn't a "Venezuelan scare story", Labour have openly been considering such a policy.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
Well it turned out that she did very poorly, but fortunately for her she was up against an arch-EU federalist who showed that being a big fish in the Eurowaffle doesn't equate to much in the real World. Has she even formed a Government yet?
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
.
I think it's a mistake to assume that middle of the road voters' concerns about Corbyn and McDonnell consist entirely of worries about their views of the IRA and Venezuela.
And these 'middle of the road voters' are not at all displeased with the reality of Brexit?
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
Thanks Dave, thanks Teresa, thanks all you spineless MPs who let the country take this disastrous course.
I am another such middle of the road voter and regard it as completely idiotic to have more worries about Brexit than a Corbyn government. Not even the worst of Brexit deals would compare with the damage from exchange controls, nationalisations without compensation and people's quantitative easing. It reminds me of social democrats in the US not liking Hillary and therefore sitting out and getting Trump. Of course it will be the poor that will get screwed most of all by the grandstanding of wealthier centre left voters telling themselves they are above both sides.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
Well it turned out that she did very poorly, but fortunately for her she was up against an arch-EU federalist who showed that being a big fish in the Eurowaffle doesn't equate to much in the real World. Has she even formed a Government yet?
But they are much better placed than us to take a hit. And they actually get a long term benefit - riddance of a dissident partner.
What do we get? A worse deal than we had and a very iffy future.
They'll offer something, just enough for us to prefer it to no deal at all. But they won't give much, or care much if we refuse.
I think they'll offer a deal that we accept which won't seem either wonderful or terrible. Some of the current doom-mongering will make that seem quite a positive outcome, and TM will probably get a little bounce at that point, but it'll merely be not as bad as one might have feared.
I think it was implicit when he was preparing for a run on the pound.
Labour has prepared for a run on the pound and capital flight if it enters Government and has consulted experts about how the party should respond, John McDonnell has said.
The shadow Chancellor told party activists they should be prepared for an “assault” by opponents in the City, the media and in Parliament that could have economic consequences.
He revealed that extensive plans are being made for Jeremy Corbyn entering Downing Street, including contingency planning for a scenario in which a Labour victory triggers a fall in the value of the pound.
Speaking at a fringe event at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton about the early days of a Labour government, Mr McDonnell said: "What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don't think there will be, but you never know, so we've got to scenario plan for that.
“People want to know we are ready and they want to know we have got a response to everything that could happen.
“Because if we can demonstrate that, that will calm things down."
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
It depends a lot on who the candidates are. Last time round, I voted LD because the Labour incumbent, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit. That's all water under the bridge now, so he'll get my vote next time round- not that he'll need it.
Mind you, if the Tories put up a remainer, I would vote for him. Not very likely though.
As a resident of this constituency, I have to disagree. Even if she is forced out as PM she will carry on as an MP.
Successful leaders like Blair and Cameron quit so as not to overshadow their successors. Unsuccessful leaders like Hague, IDS and Miliband all hung around (as did Brown for 5 years). Besides what else would she do? She doesn't have kids and I can't see her doing the speaking circuit.
Also staying on gives her the chance for some sort of redemption down the line, perhaps like Hague helping to mentor a young leader of the opposition. I think you have to think about her sense of duty as well.
but under all this is a woman who wants to run through cornfields,free from worldly cares and woes.Running through cornfields must be seen as an existential choice for her to take in good faith rather than her current predicament where she is rehearsing for a starring role in the new Sisyphus movie and it is the Tory MPs moral duty to give this poor woman the freedom she requires.
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
I think that last bit held oh so true immediately post GE2015. But now? Do you think voters are still on that cloud of hope and potential or just sticking it to the man that brought the recent spate of "unexpected" vote results? Perhaps so. Perhaps they are not running back to nurse yet but funnily enough if Brexit becomes demonstrably less successful and/or takes the Cons further out to the right, then that "bit more progressive and sensible" becomes a lot more progressive and sensible and hence a lot more attractive.
At the moment the only reason to vote Cons is because we don't want a Venezuela experiment to be conducted in the UK.
Assuming 90% (Nick?) of the PLP don't want that either it leaves the Cons hugely vulnerable to a change of leadership and pivot away from Corbynite Marxist-ist fantasy.
Quite an amazing state of British politics.
We might become a basket case economy because the Tories deliver a hard Brexit.
I know hard/WTO Brexit gives the wood to some Leavers, but it really shouldn’t.
Agreed, and frankly any talk of Venzuela is just lazy 'reds-under-the-bed' stuff.
Nothing in the Labour manifesto is any more radical than most European countries currently already adopt successfully. You may say "ah, but once in power Labour will ditch their manifesto and implement a marxist policy agenda" but really? - how's that ever going to get through a HoC vote?
No, the biggest threat to Britain's future right now is a 'no deal' hard Brexit. IMO May & Hammond know that and I suspect it is increasingly dawning on Davis, Gove & Johnson.
But of course the EU27 know it too, hence they have no need to soften their hard line. If only we had adopted a more open stance at the outset, rather than getting the EU27 backs up!
The more I consider it, the more culpable Cameron looks. Setting aside his whole approach to the EU-ref, once the vote was in he should have stayed to deliver the consequences, rather than run away. He could have dictated a sensible soft-brexit.
Too late now, I fear - either we sign-up to a solution entirely dictated by the EU (still the best option) or we face 20 years of economic disaster.
may now begging the EU for a deal we can sell to the British public. Why would the EU give a toss about what the British public will or won't buy?
Because if the public don't buy it then it's a no deal Brexit, the effects of which will go well beyond a £20bn or so shortfall in their accounts.
The public are going to get a say on the deal?
Indirectly. It will probably influence enough MPs to form a swing vote.
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls.
Could you give us any quotes to back that up?
McDonnell's wargaming for a run on the pound was all over the news and this policy was part of it.
See also Guido's report on the Young Labour conference
I mean how else are you going to stop capital flight?
You don't, necessarily, but you need to be aware of the possibility. How have we responded to the run on the pound over the last year? So far, by shrugging and saying it's good for exporters. Another option is raising interest rates, which I expect we will see shortly.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
Very much the same , think I am a centrist dad ,with two Corbyn supporting daughters and a father who makes me cringe at times when he goes into his Daily Mail rants.Anyways meals out with the family are never boring these days.
Not a protected characteristic of discrimination is it?
IIRC 'protected characteristics' are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race/nationality, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
Personally he's got a stronger case if, as a Welshman, he sued the English RFU for not picking him.
At the moment the only reason to vote Cons is because we don't want a Venezuela experiment to be conducted in the UK.
Assuming 90% (Nick?) of the PLP don't want that either it leaves the Cons hugely vulnerable to a change of leadership and pivot away from Corbynite Marxist-ist fantasy.
Quite an amazing state of British politics.
We might become a basket case economy because the Tories deliver a hard Brexit.
I know hard/WTO Brexit gives the wood to some Leavers, but it really shouldn’t.
Agreed, and frankly any talk of Venzuela is just lazy 'reds-under-the-bed' stuff.
Nothing in the Labour manifesto is any more radical than most European countries currently already adopt successfully. You may say "ah, but once in power Labour will ditch their manifesto and implement a marxist policy agenda" but really? - how's that ever going to get through a HoC vote?
No, the biggest threat to Britain's future right now is a 'no deal' hard Brexit. IMO May & Hammond know that and I suspect it is increasingly dawning on Davis, Gove & Johnson.
But of course the EU27 know it too, hence they have no need to soften their hard line. If only we had adopted a more open stance at the outset, rather than getting the EU27 backs up!
The more I consider it, the more culpable Cameron looks. Setting aside his whole approach to the EU-ref, once the vote was in he should have stayed to deliver the consequences, rather than run away. He could have dictated a sensible soft-brexit.
Too late now, I fear - either we sign-up to a solution entirely dictated by the EU (still the best option) or we face 20 years of economic disaster.
may now begging the EU for a deal we can sell to the British public. Why would the EU give a toss about what the British public will or won't buy?
Because if the public don't buy it then it's a no deal Brexit, the effects of which will go well beyond a £20bn or so shortfall in their accounts.
But they are much better placed than us to take a hit. And they actually get a long term benefit - riddance of a dissident partner.
What do we get? A worse deal than we had and a very iffy future.
They'll offer something, just enough for us to prefer it to no deal at all. But they won't give much, or care much if we refuse.
If I was in Tallinn, I'd care. Seriously bad blood between the EU and Britain will undermine support for Nato in the UK. But such thoughts may not go through Eurocrats minds in Brussels - nor, for that matter, might it go through British ministers' minds, who divorce the processes. But it could well be forced on both.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
Very much the same , think I am a centrist dad ,with two Corbyn supporting daughters and a father who makes me cringe at times when he goes into his Daily Mail rants.Anyways meals out with the family are never boring these days.
Because if the public don't buy it then it's a no deal Brexit, the effects of which will go well beyond a £20bn or so shortfall in their accounts.
Much of our political class are (pretending to be) perfectly happy with the prospect of the effect on us of a no-deal brexit. I find it impossible to imagine that the economic effects of hard brexit on the 27 (leaving aside the divorce payment) would be more than 10% as damaging to the EU as a whole, or any given member state, as they would be to the UK, so if we aren't worried (or are pretending not to be) why would they be? Similarly, we can say (and it's a reasonable claim) that sovereignty issues are as or more important than mere money, but the EU also has a quasi-sovereign status to protect. UK sovereignty is an attractive but purely ornamental family heirloom which looks nice on the dining room table, but it's not as if the Northern Isles are going to secede and march on King's Landing if the ornament is accidentally broken. The EU has real, concrete sovereignty issues going on all the time in eg Greece, Poland, Hungary, Spain and us. If sovereignty issues matter to us why would they not matter a fortiori a hell of a lot more to Brussels?
But they are much better placed than us to take a hit. And they actually get a long term benefit - riddance of a dissident partner.
What do we get? A worse deal than we had and a very iffy future.
They'll offer something, just enough for us to prefer it to no deal at all. But they won't give much, or care much if we refuse.
I think they'll offer a deal that we accept which won't seem either wonderful or terrible. Some of the current doom-mongering will make that seem quite a positive outcome, and TM will probably get a little bounce at that point, but it'll merely be not as bad as one might have feared.
That's probably right, Nick, and I guess it will almost feel like a win, even though we will be trading henceforth on worse terms than previously.
I mean how else are you going to stop capital flight?
You don't, necessarily, but you need to be aware of the possibility. How have we responded to the run on the pound over the last year? So far, by shrugging and saying it's good for exporters. Another option is raising interest rates, which I expect we will see shortly.
I'm surprised a senior former politician such as yourself doesn't know that a run on the pound, in the sense of McDonnell's wargaming, means a collapse. A fall of 10-20% as seen over the past year, whilst having some significant side-effects, is not a run on the pound.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
Still trying to form a government. Next question
Early days yet. It took over 2 months to produce a coalition agreement last time round in 2013.
Still enjoying my Med cruise though we land in Barcelona tomorrow for our flight back to UK and drive home to North Wales. I have looked in occassionally but franky it has been constant talk almost of Armageddon that has turned me off from posting but the breaking news on Sky just now states
'The EU has given the green light to preparations for the second phase of Brexit talks dealing with trade'
Opposite to the narrative here and probably very disappointing to some on here who want Brexit to fail
well, masterly inactivity seems to be doing a pretty good job atm. I do not get the impression that the money is their core concern.
I'm sorry? Pretty much the ONLY thing the EU are talking about is money.
You should pay more attention, there's also Ireland and residency; and they aren't substantively saying very much about any of them because, as I have said, they are not core concerns.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
It depends a lot on who the candidates are. Last time round, I voted LD because the Labour incumbent, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit. That's all water under the bridge now, so he'll get my vote next time round- not that he'll need it.
Mind you, if the Tories put up a remainer, I would vote for him. Not very likely though.
If Brexit has happened, does it then matter which way candidates voted in the referendum? It's quite reasonable to say yes, of course. But it seems inconsistent to think of it as water under the bridge with respect to Cryer and yet make it a purity test for a Conservative candidate.
But they are much better placed than us to take a hit. And they actually get a long term benefit - riddance of a dissident partner.
What do we get? A worse deal than we had and a very iffy future.
They'll offer something, just enough for us to prefer it to no deal at all. But they won't give much, or care much if we refuse.
I think they'll offer a deal that we accept which won't seem either wonderful or terrible. Some of the current doom-mongering will make that seem quite a positive outcome, and TM will probably get a little bounce at that point, but it'll merely be not as bad as one might have feared.
That's probably right, Nick, and I guess it will almost feel like a win, even though we will be trading henceforth on worse terms than previously.
Even more so for most voters if it controls migration.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
Turned out she was FULL OF WIN. And judged by the same standard, so was Theresa. Hooray!
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
Turned out she was FULL OF WIN. And judged by the same standard, so was Theresa. Hooray!
Nah, the German election was long scheduled, Mrs May's snap election wasn't, it was designed to wrong foot her opponents but Mrs May fell on her face.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
We don't know that she hasn't lost yet. She doesn't have a workable government. Certainly, no-one other than the leader of the CDU can form one but there is the distinct possibility that even if she holds on in that post (she probably will), she can't form a government either.
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls. I am self-employed and 80% of the income for my small business comes from overseas, so for me this could be the single most damaging thing a government could do. And of course it would be a rude awakening for the entire country, who have got used to routine foreign holidays and easy business travel. And the immigrants who form a large part of Labour's base vote may no longer be able to send money home or even visit.
I think it's a mistake to assume that middle of the road voters' concerns about Corbyn and McDonnell consist entirely of worries about their views of the IRA and Venezuela.
And these 'middle of the road voters' are not at all displeased with the reality of Brexit?
I am one such voter, and I can tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
Thanks Dave, thanks Teresa, thanks all you spineless MPs who let the country take this disastrous course.
Sounds very enticing. But the fact remains that a huge part of the PLP didn't want him and a large number of traditional Lab voters likewise; indeed some of these latter could not bring themselves to vote for him (otherwise, with the new Labour vote, we would have a landslide Labour government now).
How much if at all better do you think Lab would do without the triumvirate?
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls.
Could you give us any quotes to back that up?
McDonnell's wargaming for a run on the pound was all over the news and this policy was part of it.
See also Guido's report on the Young Labour conference
Hmm, if Labour came to power tomorrow the £ would rise I think. Because a hard Brexit would go off the agenda. Hard Brexit is much more likely to cause a run on the £ than anything else - as Nick P has observed, it has already caused a substantial devaluation.
The fundamentals for sterling are all negative - large trade deficit, political instability, Brexit, drying up of foreign investment, slowing economy. Further devaluation must be odds on, McDonnell or no McDonnell.
I am not sure any party would come out smelling of roses if there was a magnifying glass on past and present behaviour within the Palace of Westminster.
I think for alot of otherwise sensible remainers, Brexit by the Tories feels like having a large pile of flaming dogshit being left on your front door. So the answer might feel like Corbyn. But that's like phoning up and asking for your windows to be smashed and half your house robbed.
Opinions and indeed people evolve. I'm sure the Tories will try to do to McDonnell what they tried on Corbyn, but it will be even less effective because people have seen it before, McD is #2 not #1, and it'll be another 5 years on. "He said something nice about the IRA in 1986" or whatever is not going to seem terribly relevant.
As for the PLP, opinion is nuanced. Corbyn is respected as decent and has surprised them by turning out good at the job, but he's not the sort of guy you'd spend an evening in the bar with: he has an aloof streak, and after one drink he'd murmur politely that he had some papers to look at. McDonnell is a much more recognisable clubbable type - in some ways he's rather like Ed Balls, and MPs recognise the potential to do deals with him.
To answer your question: I don't know - there would be fewer new voters, more Tory switchers. But I think voters in general are in a mood to roll the dice so long as they feel it's reasonably safe, and a "don't worry, we're much the same really, just a bit more progressive and sensible with it" approach wouldn't be as successful as one might think.
McDonnell and Momentum have dropped heavy hints that Labour intend to introduce exchange controls.
Could you give us any quotes to back that up?
McDonnell's wargaming for a run on the pound was all over the news and this policy was part of it.
See also Guido's report on the Young Labour conference
Hmm, if Labour came to power tomorrow the £ would rise I think. Because a hard Brexit would go off the agenda. Hard Brexit is much more likely to cause a run on the £ than anything else - as Nick P has observed, it has already caused a substantial devaluation.
The fundamentals for sterling are all negative - large trade deficit, political instability, Brexit, drying up of foreign investment, slowing economy. Further devaluation must be odds on, McDonnell or no McDonnell.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
I mean how else are you going to stop capital flight?
You don't, necessarily, but you need to be aware of the possibility. How have we responded to the run on the pound over the last year? So far, by shrugging and saying it's good for exporters. Another option is raising interest rates, which I expect we will see shortly.
How high will interest rates have to rise in order to stop capital flight caused by the threat of asset confiscation? We're not talking about a run on the pound because are worried their assets will under perform, they're worried that they will no longer have their assets.
Yes and no. Partly the problem was the parameters for the referendum. A lot of overseas Brits were excluded as were EU nationals living here for many decades. If either of those added to the eligible voters then the outcome would probably have been more decisive (which ever way it went).
If also did not help that a major constitutional change was triggered on 50% + 1 vote. Many countries do constitutional stuff on a 2/3rds basis and "Call me Dave" could have kept his promise for a referendum and been a lot less likely to lose on that basis. In fact, he would have been wise to set a 2/3rds win level for ALL referenda including Scottish Indy. That way a win is decisive.
There seems to be a strange group of posters on here who think that the government will agree a bill for Brexit, pay it, and only then enter into negotiations over a free trade agreement with the EU. In this world, we trade with the EU for an extended period of time on WTO terms before - some time later - an FTA is agreed.
This is not going to happen.
No money will be handed over without an agreement over the future trading arrangements between the EU and the UK. "Nothing is settled until everything is settled" has been accepted - admittedly grudgingly - by the EU.
Not only that, but the EU want free trade with the UK. Post Brexit, the EU's three largest trading relationships will be with us, the US and China. It is not in the EU's interests - at all - for exports to us to be held up in any way. Now, sure, is it worse for us if there is "cliff edge" Brexit? Yes. But it would be pretty awful for the EU too. And it's worth remembering the Eurozone has only just left the misery of a decade long stagnation. The governments of France, Portugal, Spain and the like do not want to see their countries slip back into recession (especially with populist parties nipping at their heels).
This does not mean there will not be brinkmanship. It has long been in the interests of the EU to procrastinate. But it does mean that something, probably something reasonably sensible, is likely to be agreed by March 2019. And in all likelihood, there will be a two year transition to this deal.
Could it all go wrong? Yes, of course. History is full of grandstanding politicians who went for short-term tactical gain over the good of their country. (And I'm not just talking about those on the UK side here.) But nevertheless, a deal is more likely than no deal, because both sides have so much to lose.
I am not sure any party would come out smelling of roses if there was a magnifying glass on past and present behaviour within the Palace of Westminster.
I agree with the people who say he is playing with an alleged crime for political advantage. If he has credible evidence then he should report it to the police. If they then fail to take action and if the victim wants to pursue the issue then he may have a case for naming people.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
A related thought experiment:
Would Labour do better at the next election with Angela Rayner as leader - elected with Corbyn's blessing after he steps down on grounds of age in e.g. early 2021?
BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
There seems to be a strange group of posters on here who think that the government will agree a bill for Brexit, pay it, and only then enter into negotiations over a free trade agreement with the EU. In this world, we trade with the EU for an extended period of time on WTO terms before - some time later - an FTA is agreed.
This is not going to happen.
No - in this world we trade with the EU for an extended period of time under some form of transition/continuity deal before - some time later - an FTA is agreed.
Yes and no. Partly the problem was the parameters for the referendum. A lot of overseas Brits were excluded as were EU nationals living here for many decades. If either of those added to the eligible voters then the outcome would probably have been more decisive (which ever way it went).
If also did not help that a major constitutional change was triggered on 50% + 1 vote. Many countries do constitutional stuff on a 2/3rds basis and "Call me Dave" could have kept his promise for a referendum and been a lot less likely to lose on that basis. In fact, he would have been wise to set a 2/3rds win level for ALL referenda including Scottish Indy. That way a win is decisive.
Generally agree with you there, though I see no justification for non-citizens and citizens who have lived out of the country for decades being able to vote in the referendum. Had they been able to do so it would surely have been an even closer result, rather than more decisive.
Ironically Brexit ensures there will have been a rush of EU nationals becoming British citizens in the years leading up to the next election and that will be another one of the big thorns in the Tory government's side.
The Tories would easily retain Maidenhead. The notable thing at the moment is that the Tories need to lose 7 by elections to lose a vote of confidence, and in nearly 5 months since the election there hasnt been any -at which rate it would take more than 3 years for those by elections to be lost.
Corbyn's problem remains that although he is good at piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds, and in winning seats with a lot of bribed students, he is very very bad at winning Tory held marginals. And this may well be reflected in by elections this parliament-especially if the Tories time them to coincide with university holidays when students are at home.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
We can Brexit without the EU Withdrawal Bill, it’ll be quite disorderly, with us becoming a lawless state in many areas on Brexit day.
BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
Not at all. That has never been the case and why the attempts to hold it up are dumb. Unless we agree an extension with the EU we leave in March 2019 whether the GRB is passed or not. The bill is designed to make sure continuity of law and practice until such times as we have the chance to modify to our own needs but it has no direct effect on whether or not we actually leave the EU.
Yes and no. Partly the problem was the parameters for the referendum. A lot of overseas Brits were excluded as were EU nationals living here for many decades. If either of those added to the eligible voters then the outcome would probably have been more decisive (which ever way it went).
If also did not help that a major constitutional change was triggered on 50% + 1 vote. Many countries do constitutional stuff on a 2/3rds basis and "Call me Dave" could have kept his promise for a referendum and been a lot less likely to lose on that basis. In fact, he would have been wise to set a 2/3rds win level for ALL referenda including Scottish Indy. That way a win is decisive.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I will accept credit for being (one of) the first to say it in here!
I mean how else are you going to stop capital flight?
You don't, necessarily, but you need to be aware of the possibility. How have we responded to the run on the pound over the last year? So far, by shrugging and saying it's good for exporters. Another option is raising interest rates, which I expect we will see shortly.
How high will interest rates have to rise in order to stop capital flight caused by the threat of asset confiscation? We're not talking about a run on the pound because are worried their assets will under perform, they're worried that they will no longer have their assets.
Won't the capital have already flown? I note that at least one Telegraph share tipster has said he plans to exit UK stock market in next couple of years as a Labour government comes into sight.
As a resident of this constituency, I have to disagree. Even if she is forced out as PM she will carry on as an MP.
Successful leaders like Blair and Cameron quit so as not to overshadow their successors. Unsuccessful leaders like Hague, IDS and Miliband all hung around (as did Brown for 5 years). Besides what else would she do? She doesn't have kids and I can't see her doing the speaking circuit.
Also staying on gives her the chance for some sort of redemption down the line, perhaps like Hague helping to mentor a young leader of the opposition. I think you have to think about her sense of duty as well.
Thatcher remained an MP for 16 months. Callaghan , Wilson, Heath and Churchill stayed in the Commons for years after leaving office - as did Lloyd George.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
It depends a lot on who the candidates are. Last time round, I voted LD because the Labour incumbent, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit. That's all water under the bridge now, so he'll get my vote next time round- not that he'll need it.
Mind you, if the Tories put up a remainer, I would vote for him. Not very likely though.
If the review goes through (big if) you'll be in Ilford North
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
The Tories would easily retain Maidenhead. The notable thing at the moment is that the Tories need to lose 7 by elections to lose a vote of confidence, and in nearly 5 months since the election there hasnt been any -at which rate it would take more than 3 years for those by elections to be lost.
Corbyn's problem remains that although he is good at piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds, and in winning seats with a lot of bribed students, he is very very bad at winning Tory held marginals. And this may well be reflected in by elections this parliament-especially if the Tories time them to coincide with university holidays when students are at home.
Corbyn won a stack of Tory held marginals in June, and not just seats with huge numbers of students. The likes of Bury North and Vale of Clwyd are hardly studentville. This level of complacent thinking by the Tory party could lead to a bad defeat.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I will accept credit for being (one of) the first to say it in here!
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
BTW - no one seems to be that bothered that the Great Repeal Bill is stuck in the Great Revising Stage for the indefinite future. I was under the impression that without this bill we cannot Brexit.
We can Brexit without the EU Withdrawal Bill, it’ll be quite disorderly, with us becoming a lawless state in many areas on Brexit day.
In that case, I do not think many voters would back Brexit. We may be able to Brexit but RealPolitik cannot be disregarded.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Because your living presumably doesn't depend on travelling and export sales as mine does....well lucky you.
China has relaxed its capital controls immensely, as evidenced by the hordes of Chinese tourists you see all over the world nowadays....I can assure you they are not restricted to only bringing £50 out of the country like the 1970s British controls which Corbyn harks back to.
It is quite easy to explain. As a race we humans are loathsome. In every domain, in every area we behave appallingly to each other.
When we fell, boy did we fall.
Of all institutions likely to attract Weinstein behaviour, parliament is high up the list. Genuine power, celebrity of a sort, collective corporate cultures of self-protection, large numbers of young and sometimes good looking young, middle-aged men and women away from home for 4-5 nights a week, the ability to enhance or retard careers. It's possibly not quite as high as the entertainment industries because what can be offered isn't quite as attractive to the victims, and those doing have more to lose than anonymous executives and producers, but the potential is still very clearly there.
I mean how else are you going to stop capital flight?
You don't, necessarily, but you need to be aware of the possibility. How have we responded to the run on the pound over the last year? So far, by shrugging and saying it's good for exporters. Another option is raising interest rates, which I expect we will see shortly.
How high will interest rates have to rise in order to stop capital flight caused by the threat of asset confiscation? We're not talking about a run on the pound because are worried their assets will under perform, they're worried that they will no longer have their assets.
Won't the capital have already flown? I note that at least one Telegraph share tipster has said he plans to exit UK stock market in next couple of years as a Labour government comes into sight.
RoW has outperformed the UK by a mile since 2015 (Though both are up). Thats based off a couple of big blackrock tracker funds I'm in so will be representative.
I mean how else are you going to stop capital flight?
You don't, necessarily, but you need to be aware of the possibility. How have we responded to the run on the pound over the last year? So far, by shrugging and saying it's good for exporters. Another option is raising interest rates, which I expect we will see shortly.
I'm surprised a senior former politician such as yourself doesn't know that a run on the pound, in the sense of McDonnell's wargaming, means a collapse. A fall of 10-20% as seen over the past year, whilst having some significant side-effects, is not a run on the pound.
Unlike in the Bretton Woods era we are not obliged to defend the currency and use up our reserves in so doing. Under a floating exchange rate system any sudden flight from sterling will probably self correct in due course anyway. Back in the mid -1980s the pound very nearly reached parity with the US dollar when Lawson was Chancellor.
I am one such voter, and I cn tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
I agree Peter. This current lot are so bad that I could not in all conscience vote for them. And that leaves me little choice since the LDs appear unelectable in terms of govt formation.
It depends a lot on who the candidates are. Last time round, I voted LD because the Labour incumbent, John Cryer, was pro-Brexit. That's all water under the bridge now, so he'll get my vote next time round- not that he'll need it.
Mind you, if the Tories put up a remainer, I would vote for him. Not very likely though.
If the review goes through (big if) you'll be in Ilford North
The Tories would easily retain Maidenhead. The notable thing at the moment is that the Tories need to lose 7 by elections to lose a vote of confidence, and in nearly 5 months since the election there hasnt been any -at which rate it would take more than 3 years for those by elections to be lost.
Corbyn's problem remains that although he is good at piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds, and in winning seats with a lot of bribed students, he is very very bad at winning Tory held marginals. And this may well be reflected in by elections this parliament-especially if the Tories time them to coincide with university holidays when students are at home.
There were no by elections in Tory seats in the first year of the 1992 Parliament - then along came Newbury followed by Christchurch.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.
The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.
The issue of a Commons vote or a 2nd referendum needs to be concluded and quickly - because with both the pertinent question is "if its a no vote then what?"
I don't support a 2nd referendum - its too late for that. We need our parliamentary democracy to do the job its designed for. The leave campaign was simple - "Take Back Control" from Europe to the UK. The final arbiter of power in the UK is Parliament, and the Commons has primacy over the Lords.
So arguments by many leavers against a Commons vote is hypocrisy of the worst kind - either they support parliamentary sovereignty or they don't. And with a vote the question is what next? A "no, we don't support the deal" vote points to one of two scenarios - we stay in the EU even if for a fixed period to rethink, or we crash out hard. And what if the option put to the vote is crash out hard?
Leaving the EU is step 1 of a 2 step process. We can't leave and go nowhere, we need to decide the route - EFTA, a cobbled-together bilateral or WTO. We won't get the first two without agreement, so the "no vote" alternative is either WTO or we stay, and they need to make their mind up which it is.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
A related thought experiment:
Would Labour do better at the next election with Angela Rayner as leader - elected with Corbyn's blessing after he steps down on grounds of age in e.g. early 2021?
I'd have thought most of the plausible alternatives would be likely to increase rather than decrease Labour's chances, TP. Please don't think I'm teasing, but I really think the only thing that is sustaining the Blues at their current level in the polls is Fear Of The Corbyn. Take that away and....well, u know what.
I've been saying for some while that the odds on Labour most seats is a bit of a gift, but I'd better go before I get accused of talking up my own book.
Atb, and in case you missed it at the time, you had my very best wishes at the last election, and I hope you make it into Parliament one day. Regardless of stripe, the place needs people like you.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.
The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.
If Euro membership was added to remaining it would be 80% Leave whatever the deal was.
Comments
What do we get? A worse deal than we had and a very iffy future.
They'll offer something, just enough for us to prefer it to no deal at all. But they won't give much, or care much if we refuse.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/921299962658308098
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
A few on here will run out of Kleenex months before then.
I think it's a mistake to assume that middle of the road voters' concerns about Corbyn and McDonnell consist entirely of worries about their views of the IRA and Venezuela.
I am one such voter, and I can tell you I am far less worried about Venezuelan scare stories than the gruesome reality of what I consider the worst piece of Government mismanagement since Lord North was in office.
Thanks Dave, thanks Teresa, thanks all you spineless MPs who let the country take this disastrous course.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
How'd that turn out.
Labour has prepared for a run on the pound and capital flight if it enters Government and has consulted experts about how the party should respond, John McDonnell has said.
The shadow Chancellor told party activists they should be prepared for an “assault” by opponents in the City, the media and in Parliament that could have economic consequences.
He revealed that extensive plans are being made for Jeremy Corbyn entering Downing Street, including contingency planning for a scenario in which a Labour victory triggers a fall in the value of the pound.
Speaking at a fringe event at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton about the early days of a Labour government, Mr McDonnell said: "What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don't think there will be, but you never know, so we've got to scenario plan for that.
“People want to know we are ready and they want to know we have got a response to everything that could happen.
“Because if we can demonstrate that, that will calm things down."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-pound-sterling-run-john-mcdonnell-economy-government-jeremy-corbyn-party-conference-a7968156.html
I mean how else are you going to stop capital flight?
Rhys Webb 'heartbroken' over Wales policy, but will not renege on Toulon move
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41688915
Mind you, if the Tories put up a remainer, I would vote for him. Not very likely though.
See also Guido's report on the Young Labour conference
https://order-order.com/2017/10/17/corbyns-capital-controls/
IIRC 'protected characteristics' are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race/nationality, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
Personally he's got a stronger case if, as a Welshman, he sued the English RFU for not picking him.
'The EU has given the green light to preparations for the second phase of Brexit talks dealing with trade'
Opposite to the narrative here and probably very disappointing to some on here who want Brexit to fail
The fundamentals for sterling are all negative - large trade deficit, political instability, Brexit, drying up of foreign investment, slowing economy. Further devaluation must be odds on, McDonnell or no McDonnell.
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/921090629211512838
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/921091265135042560
When we fell, boy did we fall.
So the answer might feel like Corbyn. But that's like phoning up and asking for your windows to be smashed and half your house robbed.
If also did not help that a major constitutional change was triggered on 50% + 1 vote. Many countries do constitutional stuff on a 2/3rds basis and "Call me Dave" could have kept his promise for a referendum and been a lot less likely to lose on that basis. In fact, he would have been wise to set a 2/3rds win level for ALL referenda including Scottish Indy. That way a win is decisive.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
https://twitter.com/michael_chessum/status/921319769545904129
This is not going to happen.
No money will be handed over without an agreement over the future trading arrangements between the EU and the UK. "Nothing is settled until everything is settled" has been accepted - admittedly grudgingly - by the EU.
Not only that, but the EU want free trade with the UK. Post Brexit, the EU's three largest trading relationships will be with us, the US and China. It is not in the EU's interests - at all - for exports to us to be held up in any way. Now, sure, is it worse for us if there is "cliff edge" Brexit? Yes. But it would be pretty awful for the EU too. And it's worth remembering the Eurozone has only just left the misery of a decade long stagnation. The governments of France, Portugal, Spain and the like do not want to see their countries slip back into recession (especially with populist parties nipping at their heels).
This does not mean there will not be brinkmanship. It has long been in the interests of the EU to procrastinate. But it does mean that something, probably something reasonably sensible, is likely to be agreed by March 2019. And in all likelihood, there will be a two year transition to this deal.
Could it all go wrong? Yes, of course. History is full of grandstanding politicians who went for short-term tactical gain over the good of their country. (And I'm not just talking about those on the UK side here.) But nevertheless, a deal is more likely than no deal, because both sides have so much to lose.
"Universal Credit is not Mrs May’s poll tax, but it could become so if the Conservatives don’t grasp what is at stake."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/universal-credit-turns-governments-poll-tax-debacle-will-have/
Would Labour do better at the next election with Angela Rayner as leader - elected with Corbyn's blessing after he steps down on grounds of age in e.g. early 2021?
Ironically Brexit ensures there will have been a rush of EU nationals becoming British citizens in the years leading up to the next election and that will be another one of the big thorns in the Tory government's side.
Corbyn's problem remains that although he is good at piling up votes in seats that Labour already holds, and in winning seats with a lot of bribed students, he is very very bad at winning Tory held marginals. And this may well be reflected in by elections this parliament-especially if the Tories time them to coincide with university holidays when students are at home.
(and @Richard_Tyndall as well)
China has relaxed its capital controls immensely, as evidenced by the hordes of Chinese tourists you see all over the world nowadays....I can assure you they are not restricted to only bringing £50 out of the country like the 1970s British controls which Corbyn harks back to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4995436/Chicago-museum-says-Renoir-Trump-s-NYC-apartment-FAKE.html
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/921329858772336640
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/921331129155837952
I don't support a 2nd referendum - its too late for that. We need our parliamentary democracy to do the job its designed for. The leave campaign was simple - "Take Back Control" from Europe to the UK. The final arbiter of power in the UK is Parliament, and the Commons has primacy over the Lords.
So arguments by many leavers against a Commons vote is hypocrisy of the worst kind - either they support parliamentary sovereignty or they don't. And with a vote the question is what next? A "no, we don't support the deal" vote points to one of two scenarios - we stay in the EU even if for a fixed period to rethink, or we crash out hard. And what if the option put to the vote is crash out hard?
Leaving the EU is step 1 of a 2 step process. We can't leave and go nowhere, we need to decide the route - EFTA, a cobbled-together bilateral or WTO. We won't get the first two without agreement, so the "no vote" alternative is either WTO or we stay, and they need to make their mind up which it is.
I've been saying for some while that the odds on Labour most seats is a bit of a gift, but I'd better go before I get accused of talking up my own book.
Atb, and in case you missed it at the time, you had my very best wishes at the last election, and I hope you make it into Parliament one day. Regardless of stripe, the place needs people like you.