the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.
Good news for the second referendum. Those posters won’t work twice.
I have havered on this subject but I am currently of the view that Theresa May is so abject the Conservative party would do better replacing her now. That would mean in practice someone who the obsessives deem sound on Brexit but it remains possible that person could also address other more pressing matters.
It can only be Andrea Leadsom then.
If that's the answer, the question being asked is most definitely the wrong one!
Jess Phillips downplaying the Cologne sex attacks:
' Labour's Jess Phillips has compared the hundreds of sex attacks on women in Cologne on New Year's Eve to the harassment of women every weekend in Birmingham city centre. '
Jess Phillips getting outraged about a sleezy blokes night:
' In an urgent question in the House of Commons, furious Labour MP Jess Philips said: "I notice that the organisation wants to put it onto the individual members, but what actually happened was that women were bought as bait for men. '
Jess Phillips is a terrible leader to fight this sort of thing. I remember her scoffing at men's day. She's like the AltRight stereotype of a hectoring, hypocritical feminist.
I do love the incoherence of the professional outraged about this. It looks to me as if the women involved were rational adults freely contracting in a country where freedom of contract is a thing (and the FT reporter who is the primary source for all this confirms that most of them knew exactly what they were doing, and many of them had done the job in previous years). Perhaps we should make a rule that women can only contract via their father or husband?
I can't think of anything more patronising and insulting than telling people they have allowed themselves to be "used as bait".
Great news! The Presidents' Club decides not to fold and instead to hold exactly the same type of event. Even better news! You are invited.
Do you attend?
Nope. I wouldn't have any doubts about my own impeccable conduct, but still wouldn't go to anything where a chunk of the participants felt awkward about attending.
While I'd love to comment on Conservative Party internal machinations, I'm not a Conservative and if the Party feels the need to re-invent itself for the fourth time since coming into Government in 2010, fine, the rest of us will just get on with our lives.
I've been wary of dipping into the Presidents' Club issue because the best way not to tread on a mine is avoid the minefield completely but here goes.
The event quoted in the FT sounded not just Roman but almost Bacchanalian and if anything has denoted the continuity of civilisation it's events like these. They have always happened - now we have charity auctions as an integral part which is presumably much more pleasant than some of the things that happened in the past.
I was musing on what the reaction would have been if it had been an all-woman event with scantily-clad men as hosts - I imagine such events happen too but I've never been invited either as attendee (for obvious reasons) or host (for equally obvious reasons).
I've found the range of reaction fascinating - it's been hugely divisive. I've seen the "it's appalling" and I've also seen "they knew what they were letting themselves in for". No one other than the FT reporter saw anything and a lot of "prominent" people seem to have made their excuses and left (to use the old NoTW expression).
I suppose I'm back to a combination of old-fashioned and neo-puritan. Everyone has a right to work in an environment of safety and their employer has a duty of care. I'm also reminded how power, money and alcohol are perceived as aphrodisiacs, empowering of certain behaviours and somehow absolvers of personal responsibility and respect.
What a few pints on a Saturday night does to certain people's behaviours seems equivalent to what power and money does. I've never had either of the latter so I suppose I've always had to be or perceived I've had to treat other people with respect - oddly enough, anonymity on the Internet provides a different kind of power and absolution which may explain some behaviours as well.
Do people with enough money and enough power think they can have whatever they want and do whatever they like ? No one is above the law (I'd like to think and believe) but I've seen enough instances of those who think their personal fortune or status provides them with if not immunity then a good chance of getting away with it.
Jess Phillips downplaying the Cologne sex attacks:
' Labour's Jess Phillips has compared the hundreds of sex attacks on women in Cologne on New Year's Eve to the harassment of women every weekend in Birmingham city centre. '
Jess Phillips getting outraged about a sleezy blokes night:
' In an urgent question in the House of Commons, furious Labour MP Jess Philips said: "I notice that the organisation wants to put it onto the individual members, but what actually happened was that women were bought as bait for men. '
Jess Phillips is a terrible leader to fight this sort of thing. I remember her scoffing at men's day. She's like the AltRight stereotype of a hectoring, hypocritical feminist.
I do love the incoherence of the professional outraged about this. It looks to me as if the women involved were rational adults freely contracting in a country where freedom of contract is a thing (and the FT reporter who is the primary source for all this confirms that most of them knew exactly what they were doing, and many of them had done the job in previous years). Perhaps we should make a rule that women can only contract via their father or husband?
I can't think of anything more patronising and insulting than telling people they have allowed themselves to be "used as bait".
Great news! The Presidents' Club decides not to fold and instead to hold exactly the same type of event. Even better news! You are invited.
Do you attend?
I would never in a million years have attended such a thing in the first place, and I make my excuses and leave stag nights when that sort of shit kicks off (and don't go in the first place if I have prior knowledge that it is going to happen). I am just in favour of proportionate responses to things, and of leaving people to get on with stuff without interference from me. Has a law been broken? Naah. Is that because there is an obvious yawning gap in the criminal law which needs filling asap because not enough things are illegal at the moment? Naah.
I'm happy to join you as a founding member of the 'Proportionate Response Bus Driver's Club".
I have havered on this subject but I am currently of the view that Theresa May is so abject the Conservative party would do better replacing her now. That would mean in practice someone who the obsessives deem sound on Brexit but it remains possible that person could also address other more pressing matters.
It can only be Andrea Leadsom then.
If that's the answer, the question being asked is most definitely the wrong one!
I'm coming to the view that May needs to go for the good of the country. But every time I think of that, I think what if Leadsom runs and wins? Then I feel sick...
Trade deals: In general other countries aren't interested in doing things differently for us rather than the EU. They will look to retain everything they have already got. Countries with less important amounts of trade will be happy to roll over current arrangements as near as possible "as is". Others will see an opportunity to press for terms that are more advantageous to them. The killer, though, is rules of origin. There's nothing you can do about them; multilateral trumps bilateral every time because you spread the benefit over a much larger amount of trade.
A Conservative Party leadership election lasting several months is going to make the Brexit process even more dysfunctional than it is already.
I have havered on this subject but I am currently of the view that Theresa May is so abject the Conservative party would do better replacing her now. That would mean in practice someone who the obsessives deem sound on Brexit but it remains possible that person could also address other more pressing matters.
It can only be Andrea Leadsom then.
If that's the answer, the question being asked is most definitely the wrong one!
I'm coming to the view that May needs to go for the good of the country. But every time I think of that, I think what if Leadsom runs and wins? Then I feel sick...
I doubt even Leadsom thinks she is the answer. And if she does, then those are grounds for excluding her from the job!
You could (and people did) make similar arguments for indentured servitude. Not that this is on the same scale but we also have laws about sexual harassment in this country. In addition, it is all very well for the comfortably off to throw around the freedom of contract argument without realising how tough it is for people doing gig work at the bottom. No doubt if one of them had said no on such a basis and went on the dole, Tories on here would be saying they were scroungers that turned down work.
Yes, something's definitely up. Why else Boris's recent determination to portray himself as Mr Brexit and the saviour of the NHS? He must know that rebellion is in the air and Theresa's on borrowed time.
An alternative explanation is that May was preparing to sack Boris nd Boris' minders panicked, trying to scare May into not doing it with this story.
Other way round perhaps, since the names quoted were not from the Boris camp. That and today might be taken at face value but could also be seen as a Number 10 false flag operation.
I have havered on this subject but I am currently of the view that Theresa May is so abject the Conservative party would do better replacing her now. That would mean in practice someone who the obsessives deem sound on Brexit but it remains possible that person could also address other more pressing matters.
It can only be Andrea Leadsom then.
If that's the answer, the question being asked is most definitely the wrong one!
I'm coming to the view that May needs to go for the good of the country. But every time I think of that, I think what if Leadsom runs and wins? Then I feel sick...
I doubt even Leadsom thinks she is the answer. And if she does, then those are grounds for excluding her from the job!
They all think they are the answer. People like Alan Johnson who think they aren't up to the pressures of the big job, are few and far between.
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring. - I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom - During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong - Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas - I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No Leadsom - No Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No Fox - No Patel - No Rudd - (too Remainian) - No Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
the public have become more positive about immigration. Far fewer see it as a major political priority and more see it as positive for Britain’s economy and culture. What is more, this shift is seen across the board — it isn’t a case of liberal “Remainers” rallying behind migrants, while migrant sceptic “Leavers” dig in their heels. The positive shift in attitudes seems to be occurring across the political and social spectrum.
Good news for the second referendum. Those posters won’t work twice.
That rather depends on why concerns on immigration have gone down - as the author notes its not clear, but since the decline started after the Brexit vote, it could be that 'Brexit is priced in' and that if Brexit was brought into question, the trend could just as easily reverse.....
I have havered on this subject but I am currently of the view that Theresa May is so abject the Conservative party would do better replacing her now. That would mean in practice someone who the obsessives deem sound on Brexit but it remains possible that person could also address other more pressing matters.
Hunt, Gove and Boris all acceptable to the Brexiteer wing? Who else would be? Possibly the part-timer Davis?
Jess Phillips downplaying the Cologne sex attacks:
' Labour's Jess Phillips has compared the hundreds of sex attacks on women in Cologne on New Year's Eve to the harassment of women every weekend in Birmingham city centre. '
Jess Phillips getting outraged about a sleezy blokes night:
' In an urgent question in the House of Commons, furious Labour MP Jess Philips said: "I notice that the organisation wants to put it onto the individual members, but what actually happened was that women were bought as bait for men. '
Jess Phillips is a terrible leader to fight this sort of thing. I remember her scoffing at men's day. She's like the AltRight stereotype of a hectoring, hypocritical feminist.
I do love the incoherence of the professional outraged about this. It looks to me as if the women involved were rational adults freely contracting in a country where freedom of contract is a thing (and the FT reporter who is the primary source for all this confirms that most of them knew exactly what they were doing, and many of them had done the job in previous years). Perhaps we should make a rule that women can only contract via their father or husband?
I can't think of anything more patronising and insulting than telling people they have allowed themselves to be "used as bait".
Great news! The Presidents' Club decides not to fold and instead to hold exactly the same type of event. Even better news! You are invited.
Do you attend?
I would never in a million years have attended such a thing in the first place, and I make my excuses and leave stag nights when that sort of shit kicks off (and don't go in the first place if I have prior knowledge that it is going to happen). I am just in favour of proportionate responses to things, and of leaving people to get on with stuff without interference from me. Has a law been broken? Naah. Is that because there is an obvious yawning gap in the criminal law which needs filling asap because not enough things are illegal at the moment? Naah.
Is anyone saying laws have been broken or that gaps in the law relating to this have to be filled (that's not entirely rhetorical, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has been saying that kind of thing)? Perhaps critical if occasionally sanctimonious statements from high profile folk are a proportionate response.
At least it's forced mealy mouthed, equivocating denials and exculpations from pols which is always welcome.
I agree with Barnesian, the vase overflows and it goes to a vote of the full party, at which point most MPs will have reasons to vote to keep TMay for a bit, ranging from the practical to the tactical to the ideological.
They might get a commitment to stand down after Brexit out of her, though.
I think it’ll be like 1990 all over again.
Mrs May will win a majority of MPs but be fatally damaged in the process.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
Just a bit puzzled. If the Member for Essex NW (or wherever) wrote on Nov 1st 2016 to Graham Brady saying that they had lost confidence in the PM and wanted a leadership contest is that letter still valid? Or does the Hon Mem have to put a 'use by' on it? Or can they? Or once written does that mean that said Hon Mem has irretriavably and for ever lost confidence in the PM and on Jan 1st 2019 Graham Brady can add a 49th to the file and stroll along to the Whips Office?
I have havered on this subject but I am currently of the view that Theresa May is so abject the Conservative party would do better replacing her now. That would mean in practice someone who the obsessives deem sound on Brexit but it remains possible that person could also address other more pressing matters.
Hunt, Gove and Boris all acceptable to the Brexiteer wing? Who else would be? Possibly the part-timer Davis?
Not sure about Hunt - his Brexittyness seems a bit iffy to me.
You need to add a woman to the list - Esther McVey being a full-fat Brexiteer on the rise.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
1. She is not Andrea Leadsom 2. She is not Jeremy Corbyn 3. She is not Boris Johnson 4. She tries her best (not always the case with others cf BJ) 5. She is not Jacob Rees-Mogg 6. She seems normal 7. She has created the expectation of a deal with the EU (after eventually ditching the "no deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense). 8. She will actually get a deal with the EU if she lasts that long (and after ditching the entirety of the rest of her Brexit rhetoric).
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
I agree with Barnesian, the vase overflows and it goes to a vote of the full party, at which point most MPs will have reasons to vote to keep TMay for a bit, ranging from the practical to the tactical to the ideological.
They might get a commitment to stand down after Brexit out of her, though.
I think it’ll be like 1990 all over again.
Mrs May will win a majority of MPs but be fatally damaged in the process.
I think that's correct.
I don't. I think she'd lose it outright. Apart from the fairly obvious fact that she's no Thatcher, there are two points MPs need to consider.
1. If she wins a commanding majority, her position is so strengthened that she might survive to the next election - or her supporters might be able to build a narrative that she was later dumped unfairly and not given the chance her renewed mandate implied.
2. If she wins narrowly, then her position is completely undermined by a backbenches that would have been proven to be openly hostile to her.
So the logical choice for MPs who are not strongly pro- or anti-May (and that middle group will be most of them), is that they might not want a VoNC but if it happens, they have to see it through.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
Jess Phillips downplaying the Cologne sex attacks:
' Labour's Jess Phillips has compared the hundreds of sex attacks on women in Cologne on New Year's Eve to the harassment of women every weekend in Birmingham city centre. '
Jess Phillips getting outraged about a sleezy blokes night:
' In an urgent question in the House of Commons, furious Labour MP Jess Philips said: "I notice that the organisation wants to put it onto the individual members, but what actually happened was that women were bought as bait for men. '
I can't think of anything more patronising and insulting than telling people they have allowed themselves to be "used as bait".
Great news! The Presidents' Club decides not to fold and instead to hold exactly the same type of event. Even better news! You are invited.
Do you attend?
I would never in a million years have attended such a thing in the first place, and I make my excuses and leave stag nights when that sort of shit kicks off (and don't go in the first place if I have prior knowledge that it is going to happen). I am just in favour of proportionate responses to things, and of leaving people to get on with stuff without interference from me. Has a law been broken? Naah. Is that because there is an obvious yawning gap in the criminal law which needs filling asap because not enough things are illegal at the moment? Naah.
Is anyone saying laws have been broken or that gaps in the law relating to this have to be filled (that's not entirely rhetorical, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has been saying that kind of thing)? Perhaps critical if occasionally sanctimonious statements from high profile folk are a proportionate response.
At least it's forced mealy mouthed, equivocating denials and exculpations from pols which is always welcome.
Old King Cole's tuppence.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
I agree with Barnesian, the vase overflows and it goes to a vote of the full party, at which point most MPs will have reasons to vote to keep TMay for a bit, ranging from the practical to the tactical to the ideological.
They might get a commitment to stand down after Brexit out of her, though.
I think it’ll be like 1990 all over again.
Mrs May will win a majority of MPs but be fatally damaged in the process.
I think that's correct.
I don't. I think she'd lose it outright. Apart from the fairly obvious fact that she's no Thatcher, there are two points MPs need to consider.
1. If she wins a commanding majority, her position is so strengthened that she might survive to the next election - or her supporters might be able to build a narrative that she was later dumped unfairly and not given the chance her renewed mandate implied.
2. If she wins narrowly, then her position is completely undermined by a backbenches that would have been proven to be openly hostile to her.
So the logical choice for MPs who are not strongly pro- or anti-May (and that middle group will be most of them), is that they might not want a VoNC but if it happens, they have to see it through.
I'm afraid I'm going to be a contrarian in another way.
I think she wins a VoNC overwhelmingly, IF* she comes out fighting
She is in a far stronger position than Major in the mid-90s in that she has three natural constituencies within the party:
- Those who fear Brexit Interruptus - Those who fear cliff edge Brexit - Those who don't think their camp is strong enough to win a leadership election, yet.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
As Max put it the other day, within the OBR margin for error.
You are confusing projections with historical data (which admittedly is open to interpretation).
The alternative history of voting Remain, is a projection, no?
A fair point. The UK did sharply worse relative to our peers over the period and a bit worse compared to how we were doing before, and worse compared to how we were projected to be doing before. That relative underperformance happened in a context where our peers have seen a cracking boost in their economies. The relative underperformance is a fact, but could it be explained by anything other than Brexit?
1. She is not Andrea Leadsom 2. She is not Jeremy Corbyn 3. She is not Boris Johnson 4. She tries her best (not always the case with others cf BJ) 5. She is not Jacob Rees-Mogg 6. She seems normal 7. She has created the expectation of a deal with the EU (after eventually ditching the "no deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense). 8. She will actually get a deal with the EU if she lasts that long (and after ditching the entirety of the rest of her Brexit rhetoric).
Seems a good summary. If we don't keep a hold of nurse, we could indeed get something worse.
Just a bit puzzled. If the Member for Essex NW (or wherever) wrote on Nov 1st 2016 to Graham Brady saying that they had lost confidence in the PM and wanted a leadership contest is that letter still valid? Or does the Hon Mem have to put a 'use by' on it? Or can they? Or once written does that mean that said Hon Mem has irretriavably and for ever lost confidence in the PM and on Jan 1st 2019 Graham Brady can add a 49th to the file and stroll along to the Whips Office?
I've found the conversation about this very interesting this morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the rules in such edge cases are not as clearly defined as people would expect, putting more power into the hands of the 22chair. Instead, when an edge case or something not covered by the written rules comes up, they decide according to what they think is correct and/or politically expedient. That then can become unwritten precedent, or forgotten if the situation ever occurs again.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Bro. D. We seem to be getting our headers mixed up!
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
As Max put it the other day, within the OBR margin for error.
You are confusing projections with historical data (which admittedly is open to interpretation).
The alternative history of voting Remain, is a projection, no?
A fair point. The UK did sharply worse relative to our peers over the period and a bit worse compared to how we were doing before, and worse compared to how we were projected to be doing before. That relative underperformance happened in a context where our peers have seen a cracking boost in their economies. The relative underperformance is a fact, but could it be explained by anything other than Brexit?
No, I think that's fair. One thing we tend to forget in the projections out to 2030, is that while the aggregate loss of growth is relatively small (in the range 1-3%), the negative impact is front loaded.
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
If TM is challenged I would expect her to receive the backing of her cabinet and a majority of her MP's.
However, her sole purpose is to steer Brexit through to March 2019 and there is no one else.
She is good at policy announcements but poor at making them happen. I can understand the frustrations of MP's, some of which I share, and I agree she has to go as soon as possible after Brexit
If there is nobody else now how is there magically going to be somebody as soon as possible after Brexit?
Brexit won't magically transform the current gaggle of twats into something more palatable.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
That's the key point. If it's a one or two year adjustment blip, we won't notice it. Especially as we're in a worldwide boom at the moment. If the underperformance continues year after year particularly into the next recession, we will see ourselves quite a bit poorer in relative terms after a decade or so.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
No-one want to put The Settlement Money at risk - and have to sell bigger EU contributions back home.
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
Just a bit puzzled. If the Member for Essex NW (or wherever) wrote on Nov 1st 2016 to Graham Brady saying that they had lost confidence in the PM and wanted a leadership contest is that letter still valid? Or does the Hon Mem have to put a 'use by' on it? Or can they? Or once written does that mean that said Hon Mem has irretriavably and for ever lost confidence in the PM and on Jan 1st 2019 Graham Brady can add a 49th to the file and stroll along to the Whips Office?
I could see Graham Brady going around the letter writers, putting pressure on them to withdraw their letters.
Just a bit puzzled. If the Member for Essex NW (or wherever) wrote on Nov 1st 2016 to Graham Brady saying that they had lost confidence in the PM and wanted a leadership contest is that letter still valid? Or does the Hon Mem have to put a 'use by' on it? Or can they? Or once written does that mean that said Hon Mem has irretriavably and for ever lost confidence in the PM and on Jan 1st 2019 Graham Brady can add a 49th to the file and stroll along to the Whips Office?
I've found the conversation about this very interesting this morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the rules in such edge cases are not as clearly defined as people would expect, putting more power into the hands of the 22chair. Instead, when an edge case or something not covered by the written rules comes up, they decide according to what they think is correct and/or politically expedient. That then can become unwritten precedent, or forgotten if the situation ever occurs again.
Presumably the chair of the 22 can review the letters they have - and in such cases have a quiet word with the member - 'that letter you lodged last year - are you still happy with it being lodged or do you want to rescind it?'
Voting to leave the European Union has cost Britain more than £200 million a week in lost growth, the governor of the Bank of England believes.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
... so that's all right then? Could the NHS do with £200million per week?
Er, last time I looked, the state didn't claim all GDP in taxes. Your point is taken though, even at a more realistic £19.8 million a week.
UK taxation as a proportion of GDP is about 34% though? That would be equivalent to £68m a week.
The UK spends about 9.9% of GDP on health. I assumed that other departments would have dibs on our tax take (which iirc is slightly higher than your figure, at 36.9%). But assuming that health gets all the money, it would be just under £71 million per week.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Where attendees wake up the next morning with an envelope of photographs on the bedside table.
Just a bit puzzled. If the Member for Essex NW (or wherever) wrote on Nov 1st 2016 to Graham Brady saying that they had lost confidence in the PM and wanted a leadership contest is that letter still valid? Or does the Hon Mem have to put a 'use by' on it? Or can they? Or once written does that mean that said Hon Mem has irretriavably and for ever lost confidence in the PM and on Jan 1st 2019 Graham Brady can add a 49th to the file and stroll along to the Whips Office?
I could see Graham Brady going around the letter writers, putting pressure on them to withdraw their letters.
Mr Brady would never have done that. Sir Graham on the other hand...
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Where attendees wake up the next morning with an envelope of photographs on the bedside table.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
I don't think the Presidents Club event was quite the equivalent of an acid bath.
Is anyone saying laws have been broken or that gaps in the law relating to this have to be filled (that's not entirely rhetorical, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has been saying that kind of thing)? Perhaps critical if occasionally sanctimonious statements from high profile folk are a proportionate response.
At least it's forced mealy mouthed, equivocating denials and exculpations from pols which is always welcome.
I don't think they are, which is my point. There is a fundamental human right to be a twat.
And it's the sheer stupidity of the thing which is jaw-dropping. If I were a City bod I would be scrutinising the guest list very carefully, because who wants to do any future business with someone moronic enough to have gone to this thing?
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Bob Bootby would have loved the Presidents Club.
Another black mark against the PC, why didn't they provide scantily clad, nubile young 'hosts' to cater for their gay guests, or do testosterone-filled movers and shakers have to be straighter than the Stanford Linear Accelerator?
Incidentally, this surely adds to our list of useless election-related systems. The idea that you gradually fill up a vase with a trickle of water (people feeling annoyed about this or that at some point) and when it's 15% full you suddenly call a vote of no confidence is just bonkers. Quite possibly there are letters in there from years ago that the authors have even forgotten they've written.
I don't think it would work like that - I'm pretty sure that before starting that awkward conversation with Mrs May, Graham Brady would check that those who had sent letters hadn't changed their minds.
Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Bob Bootby would have loved the Presidents Club.
Another black mark against the PC, why didn't they provide scantily clad, nubile young 'hosts' to cater for their gay guests, or do testosterone-filled movers and shakers have to be straighter than the Stanford Linear Accelerator?
Harold MacMillan would tell you Boothby was bi.
Though I believe he was tri-sexual. He’d try anything sexually.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
No, I think that's fair. One thing we tend to forget in the projections out to 2030, is that while the aggregate loss of growth is relatively small (in the range 1-3%), the negative impact is front loaded.
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
I don't have any more insight into the future than anyone else. I am, however, more concerned about the Brexit medium term than the short term, precisely because I don't expect Brexit to be an immediate economic disaster and never have done. Individuals, companies and governments have existing investments, trading systems and life choices they want to keep going. Over time however economic activity will drift naturally from the smaller unit to the larger one as these review their next steps and investments. Governments will want, for example, financial services to be happening in their territories and regulated by them. They have the will and the means to make that happen.
Long term - no-one knows. We will have given up worrying about it and as the famous man said, we will probably be dead.
Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
Interesting to note that today is the celebration of the Conversion of St Paul - the archetypal example of prosecutor becomes convert.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Bob Bootby would have loved the Presidents Club.
Another black mark against the PC, why didn't they provide scantily clad, nubile young 'hosts' to cater for their gay guests, or do testosterone-filled movers and shakers have to be straighter than the Stanford Linear Accelerator?
Harold MacMillan would tell you Boothby was bi.
Though I believe he was tri-sexual. He’d try anything sexually.
I note that old Bob was MP for East Aberdeenshire, which if you know the place is quite a thing. One can only hope that the two Tory MPs in the replacement constituencies are worthy successors.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Where attendees wake up the next morning with an envelope of photographs on the bedside table.
Where attendees wake up the next morning with a photographs on a tablet or phone on the bedside table.
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Bob Bootby would have loved the Presidents Club.
Another black mark against the PC, why didn't they provide scantily clad, nubile young 'hosts' to cater for their gay guests, or do testosterone-filled movers and shakers have to be straighter than the Stanford Linear Accelerator?
Harold MacMillan would tell you Boothby was bi.
Though I believe he was tri-sexual. He’d try anything sexually.
I note that old Bob was MP for East Aberdeenshire, which if you know the place is quite a thing. One can only hope that the two Tory MPs in the replacement constituencies are worthy successors.
Alas I don’t know the place, would you mind explaining why East Aberdeenshire is a thing?
No, I think that's fair. One thing we tend to forget in the projections out to 2030, is that while the aggregate loss of growth is relatively small (in the range 1-3%), the negative impact is front loaded.
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
I don't have any more insight into the future than anyone else. I am, however, more concerned about the Brexit medium term than the short term, precisely because I don't expect Brexit to be an immediate economic disaster and never have done. Individuals, companies and governments have existing investments, trading systems and life choices they want to keep going. Over time however economic activity will drift naturally from the smaller unit to the larger one as these review their next steps and investments. Governments will want, for example, financial services to be happening in their territories and regulated by them. They have the will and the means to make that happen.
Long term - no-one knows. We will have given up worrying about it and as the famous man said, we will probably be dead.
There will always be that shimmering mirage of what the world would have been like had Remain won (even with a second referendum, the UK's position in the EU will be very different). The economy stronger, the summers warmer (or cooler, if that's your preference, dear reader), no one being beastly to the Poles and so forth.
That is, as pTerry said, a different trouser leg of time. My only advice to those who consider themselves forever unreconciled to this world line is to ponder Everett's interpretation of quantum theory and rest content that in an infinite number of other universes, we are still members.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
Us: We're leaving. EU: We are perfectly happy for you to stay. Us: That's as maybe, but we respect democracy and will be leaving. EU: Of course, if you change your mind Us: And we'll be leaving the SM/CU too, and are looking for a comprehensive trade deal incl. Services. EU: You need to tell us what you want. Us: Erm, yes, we just did. EU: You can't stay in the SM and cherry pick. Us: Erm, we don't want to. EU: We might be able to improve on Norway. Us: Kind of you, but we don't want to stay in the SM anyway. EU: You need to tell us what you want. Oh, and if you want to stay in you are welcome to.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
Us: We're leaving. EU: We are perfectly happy for you to stay. Us: That's as maybe, but we respect democracy and will be leaving. EU: Of course, if you change your mind Us: And we'll be leaving the SM/CU too, and are looking for a comprehensive trade deal incl. Services. EU: You need to tell us what you want. Us: Erm, yes, we just did. EU: You can't stay in the SM and cherry pick. Us: Erm, we don't want to. EU: We might be able to improve on Norway. Us: Kind of you, but we don't want to stay in the SM anyway. EU: You need to tell us what you want. Oh, and if you want to stay in you are welcome to.
Repeat ad Infinitum.
If we mean it, why are we not building customs infrastructure?
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
Did he not pay attention to May's Florence speech? The UK appreciate the indivisibility of the four freedoms (sorry, The Four Freedoms) and will therefore have to leave the Single Market, as thems the rules of the club.
No, I think that's fair. One thing we tend to forget in the projections out to 2030, is that while the aggregate loss of growth is relatively small (in the range 1-3%), the negative impact is front loaded.
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
I don't have any more insight into the future than anyone else. I am, however, more concerned about the Brexit medium term than the short term, precisely because I don't expect Brexit to be an immediate economic disaster and never have done. Individuals, companies and governments have existing investments, trading systems and life choices they want to keep going. Over time however economic activity will drift naturally from the smaller unit to the larger one as these review their next steps and investments. Governments will want, for example, financial services to be happening in their territories and regulated by them. They have the will and the means to make that happen.
Long term - no-one knows. We will have given up worrying about it and as the famous man said, we will probably be dead.
There will always be that shimmering mirage of what the world would have been like had Remain won (even with a second referendum, the UK's position in the EU will be very different). The economy stronger, the summers warmer (or cooler, if that's your preference, dear reader), no one being beastly to the Poles and so forth.
That is, as pTerry said, a different trouser leg of time. My only advice to those who consider themselves forever unreconciled to this world line is to ponder Everett's interpretation of quantum theory and rest content that in an infinite number of other universes, we are still members.
I am not reconciled or unreconciled. I am interested in outcomes. I think they matter. I also think we have choices.
Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Bob Bootby would have loved the Presidents Club.
Another black mark against the PC, why didn't they provide scantily clad, nubile young 'hosts' to cater for their gay guests, or do testosterone-filled movers and shakers have to be straighter than the Stanford Linear Accelerator?
Harold MacMillan would tell you Boothby was bi.
Though I believe he was tri-sexual. He’d try anything sexually.
I note that old Bob was MP for East Aberdeenshire, which if you know the place is quite a thing. One can only hope that the two Tory MPs in the replacement constituencies are worthy successors.
Alas I don’t, would you mind explaining why East Aberdeenshire is a thing?
Douce, white, small town Scotland, and that's the 21st century. Couldn't imagine a place further from rent boys and glass topped coffee tables (though it is sheep shagger central in Scottish regional mythology).
I must have missed a trick or two whn younger. For years I attended Gentlemens Dining Clubs and similar and nothing untoward occurred, apart once when a member walked out in irritation at the speakers politics. We had a reasonable meal, a couple of drinks, put the world to rights, sort of, and that was it. Where did I go wrong?
Sounds ok to me. The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
Bob Bootby would have loved the Presidents Club.
Another black mark against the PC, why didn't they provide scantily clad, nubile young 'hosts' to cater for their gay guests, or do testosterone-filled movers and shakers have to be straighter than the Stanford Linear Accelerator?
Harold MacMillan would tell you Boothby was bi.
Though I believe he was tri-sexual. He’d try anything sexually.
I note that old Bob was MP for East Aberdeenshire, which if you know the place is quite a thing. One can only hope that the two Tory MPs in the replacement constituencies are worthy successors.
Alas I don’t, would you mind explaining why East Aberdeenshire is a thing?
Douce, white, small town Scotland, and that's the 21st century. Couldn't imagine a place further from rent boys and glass topped coffee tables (though it is sheep shagger central in Scottish regional mythology).
Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
Interesting to note that today is the celebration of the Conversion of St Paul - the archetypal example of prosecutor becomes convert.
Didn't he fall off his horse and bang his head? So brain injury being the miraculous cause of his conversion.
No, I think that's fair. One thing we tend to forget in the projections out to 2030, is that while the aggregate loss of growth is relatively small (in the range 1-3%), the negative impact is front loaded.
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
I don't have any more insight into the future than anyone else. I am, however, more concerned about the Brexit medium term than the short term, precisely because I don't expect Brexit to be an immediate economic disaster and never have done. Individuals, companies and governments have existing investments, trading systems and life choices they want to keep going. Over time however economic activity will drift naturally from the smaller unit to the larger one as these review their next steps and investments. Governments will want, for example, financial services to be happening in their territories and regulated by them. They have the will and the means to make that happen.
Long term - no-one knows. We will have given up worrying about it and as the famous man said, we will probably be dead.
There will always be that shimmering mirage of what the world would have been like had Remain won (even with a second referendum, the UK's position in the EU will be very different). The economy stronger, the summers warmer (or cooler, if that's your preference, dear reader), no one being beastly to the Poles and so forth.
That is, as pTerry said, a different trouser leg of time. My only advice to those who consider themselves forever unreconciled to this world line is to ponder Everett's interpretation of quantum theory and rest content that in an infinite number of other universes, we are still members.
I am not reconciled or unreconciled. I am interested in outcomes. I think they matter. I also think we have choices.
I think we generally agree. I'm both fascinated and worried that we'll make the wrong choices. However, it's really out of the hands of the electorate at present.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
Did he not pay attention to May's Florence speech? The UK appreciate the indivisibility of the four freedoms (sorry, The Four Freedoms) and will therefore have to leave the Single Market, as thems the rules of the club.
And he's another one who (deliberately?) like Macron confuses access to the Single Market with membership.......
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring. - I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom - During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong - Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas - I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No Leadsom - No Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No Fox - No Patel - No Rudd - (too Remainian) - No Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
The origin of the universe is like abiogenesis. We don't know, we don't have theories that can address the issue (the 'Big Bang' explains 'what' but not 'why'), nor the mathematics to handle anything before Planck time. Science is at its worst when dealing with the ineffable. Once it's effable, we're good. No need for deities.
Changing leader won't change the parliamentary arithmetic, reconcile the irreconcilable, or allow radical new and popular policies to be brought forward when there's no majority to impose them. At best a new leader could sound fresher and stop screwing up presentation so much, which is something. But it's probably not enough for a honeymoon effect to last very long, which is why I think changing leader now is probably a mistake. However, like others, I do wonder.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
Did he not pay attention to May's Florence speech? The UK appreciate the indivisibility of the four freedoms (sorry, The Four Freedoms) and will therefore have to leave the Single Market, as thems the rules of the club.
And he's another one who (deliberately?) like Macron confuses access to the Single Market with membership.......
It's a personal bugbear. Anyone has 'access' to European market via the CET. We misrepresent it domestically too. We're not leaving the Single Market. We've said (rightly or wrongly) that we don't want FoM as currently constituted and, quite rightly, we're being kicked out of the club.
Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
The origin of the universe is like abiogenesis. We don't know, we don't have theories that can address the issue (the 'Big Bang' explains 'what' but not 'why'), nor the mathematics to handle anything before Planck time. Science is at its worst when dealing with the ineffable. Once it's effable, we're good. No need for deities.
People seem to struggle with the concept that there was no such thing as time prior to the beginning of the universe.
Mr. Eagles, I heard, when studying Religious Studies at school, that ardent atheists (or other theists) are likelier to convert to a religion than lazy agnostics. Apparently there's a much shorter distance of travel between passionate opposition and conversion than not really being fussed and conversion.
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring. - I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom - During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong - Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas - I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No Leadsom - No Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No Fox - No Patel - No Rudd - (too Remainian) - No Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
It's Hunt.
Battle of the Jezzas.
Jeremy Hunt would be, joint with Boris, the worst of almost all options. He is the poster child for the screw-ups with the NHS and for privatisations. He also has shareholdings in companies that benefit from NHS privatisation, making him look not just incompetent but venal too. Corbyn and the Left would have an absolute field day.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
Us: We're leaving. EU: We are perfectly happy for you to stay. Us: That's as maybe, but we respect democracy and will be leaving. EU: Of course, if you change your mind Us: And we'll be leaving the SM/CU too, and are looking for a comprehensive trade deal incl. Services. EU: You need to tell us what you want. Us: Erm, yes, we just did. EU: You can't stay in the SM and cherry pick. Us: Erm, we don't want to. EU: We might be able to improve on Norway. Us: Kind of you, but we don't want to stay in the SM anyway. EU: You need to tell us what you want. Oh, and if you want to stay in you are welcome to.
Repeat ad Infinitum.
If we mean it, why are we not building customs infrastructure?
Comments
With the possible exception of the Crown Court.
While I'd love to comment on Conservative Party internal machinations, I'm not a Conservative and if the Party feels the need to re-invent itself for the fourth time since coming into Government in 2010, fine, the rest of us will just get on with our lives.
I've been wary of dipping into the Presidents' Club issue because the best way not to tread on a mine is avoid the minefield completely but here goes.
The event quoted in the FT sounded not just Roman but almost Bacchanalian and if anything has denoted the continuity of civilisation it's events like these. They have always happened - now we have charity auctions as an integral part which is presumably much more pleasant than some of the things that happened in the past.
I was musing on what the reaction would have been if it had been an all-woman event with scantily-clad men as hosts - I imagine such events happen too but I've never been invited either as attendee (for obvious reasons) or host (for equally obvious reasons).
I've found the range of reaction fascinating - it's been hugely divisive. I've seen the "it's appalling" and I've also seen "they knew what they were letting themselves in for". No one other than the FT reporter saw anything and a lot of "prominent" people seem to have made their excuses and left (to use the old NoTW expression).
I suppose I'm back to a combination of old-fashioned and neo-puritan. Everyone has a right to work in an environment of safety and their employer has a duty of care. I'm also reminded how power, money and alcohol are perceived as aphrodisiacs, empowering of certain behaviours and somehow absolvers of personal responsibility and respect.
What a few pints on a Saturday night does to certain people's behaviours seems equivalent to what power and money does. I've never had either of the latter so I suppose I've always had to be or perceived I've had to treat other people with respect - oddly enough, anonymity on the Internet provides a different kind of power and absolution which may explain some behaviours as well.
Do people with enough money and enough power think they can have whatever they want and do whatever they like ? No one is above the law (I'd like to think and believe) but I've seen enough instances of those who think their personal fortune or status provides them with if not immunity then a good chance of getting away with it.
And yeah. The fall in the pound was significant and rightly got a lot of coverage. Its recovery, however, has been far less remarked upon.
A Conservative Party leadership election lasting several months is going to make the Brexit process even more dysfunctional than it is already.
Europe’s worst Italian nightmare just got a little more likely.
https://www.politico.eu/article/5stars-consider-post-election-pact-with-far-right-report/
- I've never been impressed with her. Uninspired and boring.
- I was disappointed when she became PM, but would've taken her in a heartbeat over Leadsom
- During the honeymoon period and 23% poll leads I shrugged my shoulders, telling myself I must've got it wrong
- Then during the GE those voters in the centre (like me) soon saw what I see. A dull, boring woman bereft of ideas
- I'd support getting rid of her, hoping she gets replaced by someone with a positive spark, but only if some serious serious thought goes into it first*
*As destabilising as removing a PM would appear to be, I'm not convinced it'd be that big a deal. Brexit was an enormous shock and has made little difference to ordinary people's lives. Getting shot of May would be far less of a shock. Things move quickly in the modern world.
Trouble is, who can replace her and keep the two wings of the party together? Without putting centre ground voters off?
Mogg - No
Leadsom - No
Gove - (I'm a fan, but I just don't think he's popular enough with voters) No
Fox - No
Patel - No
Rudd - (too Remainian) - No
Hammond - No
The likes of Dominic Raab, Nicky Morgan, Savid Javid are all too unknown by the wider public to currently take on such a difficult task.
It leaves Davis, Hunt and Boris.
I like Boris but even as a fan I'm unsure. I do, however, think he'd make a good chairman and front-man. But many think the opposite.
I guess this is why getting rid of May needs some serious chin-stroking before the MPs move against her.
Who else would be? Possibly the part-timer Davis?
At least it's forced mealy mouthed, equivocating denials and exculpations from pols which is always welcome.
Mark Carney indicated during a private breakfast meeting with business leaders in Davos that the country had forfeited about £10 billion a year in GDP since the June 2016 referendum. The Bank has been careful not to quantify the effect of the Brexit vote to avoid accusations of political interference.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-costs-200m-every-week-in-lost-growth-says-carney-mxr5cwkhf
Or once written does that mean that said Hon Mem has irretriavably and for ever lost confidence in the PM and on Jan 1st 2019 Graham Brady can add a 49th to the file and stroll along to the Whips Office?
You need to add a woman to the list - Esther McVey being a full-fat Brexiteer on the rise.
As Max put it the other day, within the OBR margin for error.
1. She is not Andrea Leadsom
2. She is not Jeremy Corbyn
3. She is not Boris Johnson
4. She tries her best (not always the case with others cf BJ)
5. She is not Jacob Rees-Mogg
6. She seems normal
7. She has created the expectation of a deal with the EU (after eventually ditching the "no deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense).
8. She will actually get a deal with the EU if she lasts that long (and after ditching the entirety of the rest of her Brexit rhetoric).
1. If she wins a commanding majority, her position is so strengthened that she might survive to the next election - or her supporters might be able to build a narrative that she was later dumped unfairly and not given the chance her renewed mandate implied.
2. If she wins narrowly, then her position is completely undermined by a backbenches that would have been proven to be openly hostile to her.
So the logical choice for MPs who are not strongly pro- or anti-May (and that middle group will be most of them), is that they might not want a VoNC but if it happens, they have to see it through.
I think she wins a VoNC overwhelmingly, IF* she comes out fighting
She is in a far stronger position than Major in the mid-90s in that she has three natural constituencies within the party:
- Those who fear Brexit Interruptus
- Those who fear cliff edge Brexit
- Those who don't think their camp is strong enough to win a leadership election, yet.
*This is admittedly a big if
If they only need one more vote, it's very credible. However, that does put immense weight on the one who might be considering it.
Could the NHS do with £200million per week?
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/956471421269618689
The Presidents Club thing as reported resembled something organised by the Krays to schmooze and/or blackmail the great and the good.
If we don't keep a hold of nurse, we could indeed get something worse.
Also, so much for European unity on this issue. After the divorce bill agreement it sounds as if several members are pushing for better treatment than the FederalistDreamers wanted....
The only other factor I can think of is that we're essentially at full employment, and the economy is constrained, but I would expect Brexit effects to dominate that.
Brexit won't magically transform the current gaggle of twats into something more palatable.
They always look down on me for being a bad Muslim.
https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/956168492008591360
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/956474459099103232
And it's the sheer stupidity of the thing which is jaw-dropping. If I were a City bod I would be scrutinising the guest list very carefully, because who wants to do any future business with someone moronic enough to have gone to this thing?
Interesting to consider, as I'm quite a relaxed atheist now but was a bit angrier about it in my youth.
Was she a tax exile?
Though I believe he was tri-sexual. He’d try anything sexually.
Long term - no-one knows. We will have given up worrying about it and as the famous man said, we will probably be dead.
That is, as pTerry said, a different trouser leg of time. My only advice to those who consider themselves forever unreconciled to this world line is to ponder Everett's interpretation of quantum theory and rest content that in an infinite number of other universes, we are still members.
https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/956453087685894145
Us: We're leaving.
EU: We are perfectly happy for you to stay.
Us: That's as maybe, but we respect democracy and will be leaving.
EU: Of course, if you change your mind
Us: And we'll be leaving the SM/CU too, and are looking for a comprehensive trade deal incl. Services.
EU: You need to tell us what you want.
Us: Erm, yes, we just did.
EU: You can't stay in the SM and cherry pick.
Us: Erm, we don't want to.
EU: We might be able to improve on Norway.
Us: Kind of you, but we don't want to stay in the SM anyway.
EU: You need to tell us what you want. Oh, and if you want to stay in you are welcome to.
Repeat ad Infinitum.
I cannot really understand aetheism....It is as non sensical as faith based doctrinal religion....
The universe appeared from somewhere right?
Ahem.
Battle of the Jezzas.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/charity-ladies-night-tickets-40061787886