Can’t imagine what Mrs May did to piss off the oldies.
It was the not-quite-so-oldies that got pissed off. Those who before too long were relying on getting a majority stake in Bank of Mum'n'Dad. The truly elderly seemed to be more understanding of what she was trying to achieve with the "Dementia Tax".
And I bring as Exhibt A the seat of Torbay, which has many more than its fair share of crumblies. If they really hated it, you might have expected the Tory vote to be in some trouble. Instead, the majority rose from 3,286 to 14,283.
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models
We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.
EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.
I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.
I think all of the latter are there because there's so much money in London, at least everything except insurance.
Her biggest mistake was not making the election campaign as short as possible.
Oh right, giving them less time to make preparations, and so making the manifesto even more of a pig's ear than it was.
Surely the advantage of the PM in calling an election is that they do all the prep in advance and catch the opposition on the hop.
But any serious preparations for an election would've inevitably leaked out, which would've firstly ruined the "surprise" element for opposition parties, and secondly would've basically closed off any escape route for May to not call an election without being labelled a "bottler", like Brown.
According to the Tim Shipman book, she really did only decide to call an election on that walk in Wales, and even Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were only told a few days before she officially announced it. There'd been absolutely no preparations.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
Her biggest mistake was not making the election campaign as short as possible.
Oh right, giving them less time to make preparations, and so making the manifesto even more of a pig's ear than it was.
Surely the advantage of the PM in calling an election is that they do all the prep in advance and catch the opposition on the hop.
But any serious preparations for an election would've inevitably leaked out, which would've firstly ruined the "surprise" element for opposition parties, and secondly would've basically closed off any escape route for May to not call an election without being labelled a "bottler", like Brown.
According to the Tim Shipman book, she really did only decide to call an election on that walk in Wales, and even Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were only told a few days before she officially announced it. There'd been absolutely no preparations.
The announcement date needn't have changed, but the election date could have been earlier. I think that's what AndyJS is referring to.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
Her biggest mistake was not making the election campaign as short as possible.
Oh right, giving them less time to make preparations, and so making the manifesto even more of a pig's ear than it was.
Surely the advantage of the PM in calling an election is that they do all the prep in advance and catch the opposition on the hop.
But any serious preparations for an election would've inevitably leaked out, which would've firstly ruined the "surprise" element for opposition parties, and secondly would've basically closed off any escape route for May to not call an election without being labelled a "bottler", like Brown.
According to the Tim Shipman book, she really did only decide to call an election on that walk in Wales, and even Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were only told a few days before she officially announced it. There'd been absolutely no preparations.
The announcement date needn't have changed, but the election date could have been earlier. I think that's what AndyJS is referring to.
I know, but the point still stands that they made a mess of the preparations even with 7 weeks between the announcement and election day; how much worse would it have been if they had even less?
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models
We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.
EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.
I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.
CETA (the Canada deal) allows mode 2 (you go abroad to get your services) and mode 3 (the supplier sets up a subsidiary in the target territory). Crucially you don't get mode 1 where you can buy services from another country with national protections and legal recourse through your own courts. Consumers of services in France can buy mode 2 services from Korea, say, but they don't on the whole. They do however buy considerable amounts of mode 1 services from the UK. After Brexit, they won't be able to, according to the draft guidelines.
"Remember 2017 when Labour thought they were a government in waiting, when the polls said that Corbyn would be prime minister, before Labour crashed and burned in 2022?".
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked.
The main decision of the summit conference was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
Macmillan and Heath didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes on Europe. Blair's greatest crime was turning his pro-Europeanism as a stick to beat the Tories with.
We really need to stop people talking this nonsense. It was absolutely a political project and sold as such from day one. And if a non-political European Union is possible I for one have no idea what it would look like.
Her biggest mistake was not making the election campaign as short as possible.
Oh right, giving them less time to make preparations, and so making the manifesto even more of a pig's ear than it was.
Surely the advantage of the PM in calling an election is that they do all the prep in advance and catch the opposition on the hop.
But any serious preparations for an election would've inevitably leaked out, which would've firstly ruined the "surprise" element for opposition parties, and secondly would've basically closed off any escape route for May to not call an election without being labelled a "bottler", like Brown.
According to the Tim Shipman book, she really did only decide to call an election on that walk in Wales, and even Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were only told a few days before she officially announced it. There'd been absolutely no preparations.
The announcement date needn't have changed, but the election date could have been earlier. I think that's what AndyJS is referring to.
I know, but the point still stands that they made a mess of the preparations even with 7 weeks between the announcement and election day; how much worse would it have been if they had even less?
We really need to stop people talking this nonsense. It was absolutely a political project and sold as such from day one. And if a non-political European Union is possible I for one have no idea what it would look like.
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
It ain't either/or.
A deal of FS means Euro-clearing in London and access to UK capital markets for the EU.
It also means fewer jobs in London and more in Frankfurt. But we'll live.
Euro-clearing is a complicated issue.
This is all about the amount of capital that banks are required to put up at clearing houses. So, let's say that you are UBS and you have a very large position in DAX futures. You will need to leave security with the clearing house to make sure that you will be able to meet your obligations if the price moves against you.
The big clearing houses are essentially government (or central bank) backed. Let's say that every European stock exchange lost two-thirds of its value tomorrow. There would be a lot of losers (and a lot of winners). But the losers may not be able to pay up. In those circumstances, the central bank would step in to ensure the integrity of the financial system.
Now, right now, pretty much all clearing in European/UK derivatives is done by LCH.Clearnet. For Sterling based products (and in particular interest rate derivatives), it is implicitly backed by the Bank of England. And for Euro based, by the ECB.
Post the UK leaving the EU, the question is whether the ECB would continue to offer what is essentially unlimited backing for a UK commercial organisation, or whether they would require that the organisation is EU based, and under ECB control and regulation.
Banks, by the way, really don't want the clearing landscape to fragment. Right now, LCH.Clearnet works out how much Goldman Sachs has to leave with them in collateral. If Goldman is long DAX futures, and short FTSE ones, then the risk is the divergence between those two indices. As a result, the amount of collateral is relatively small. (Index movements are pretty highly correlated.) In the event of fragmentation, Goldman would need to put up collateral (and probably more collateral as it would have two different positions, both of which would be subject to more volatility). A doubling (or more) of the amount of collateral required would have a very negative impact on the profitability of large investment banks.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
Her biggest mistake was not making the election campaign as short as possible.
Oh right, giving them less time to make preparations, and so making the manifesto even more of a pig's ear than it was.
Surely the advantage of the PM in calling an election is that they do all the prep in advance and catch the opposition on the hop.
But any serious preparations for an election would've inevitably leaked out, which would've firstly ruined the "surprise" element for opposition parties, and secondly would've basically closed off any escape route for May to not call an election without being labelled a "bottler", like Brown.
According to the Tim Shipman book, she really did only decide to call an election on that walk in Wales, and even Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were only told a few days before she officially announced it. There'd been absolutely no preparations.
Is that completely true? It might be that Theresa May made the final call late on but surely the Conservatives had brought forward their candidate selection process -- a happy coincidence or evidence that at least the possibility of a snap election was being considered? One imagines legal advice on the FTPA would have been sought too.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
Very possibly. And the visceral anti-Corbyn/Labour vote may be similarly motivated.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
Major had by far the greatest business success outside politics. I know people that worked with him at Carlyle Group, and they thought him very bright.
We really need to stop people talking this nonsense. It was absolutely a political project and sold as such from day one. And if a non-political European Union is possible I for one have no idea what it would look like.
NAFTA, but in Europe.
You don't want NAFTA in Europe. Because NAFTA is explicitly controlled by the US, in that ISDS Tribunals have three judges on them, two of which must always be American. (Also ISDS Tribunals operate in secret, which given they have the effective right to over-rule local law seems absolutely wrong to me.)
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
It ain't either/or.
A deal of FS means Euro-clearing in London and access to UK capital markets for the EU.
It also means fewer jobs in London and more in Frankfurt. But we'll live.
Euro-clearing is a complicated issue.
This is all about the amount of capital that banks are required to put up at clearing houses. So, let's say that you are UBS and you have a very large position in DAX futures. You will need to leave security with the clearing house to make sure that you will be able to meet your obligations if the price moves against you.
The big clearing houses are essentially government (or central bank) backed. Let's say that every European stock exchange lost two-thirds of its value tomorrow. There would be a lot of losers (and a lot of winners). But the losers may not be able to pay up. In those circumstances, the central bank would step in to ensure the integrity of the financial system.
Now, right now, pretty much all clearing in European/UK derivatives is done by LCH.Clearnet. For Sterling based products (and in particular interest rate derivatives), it is implicitly backed by the Bank of England. And for Euro based, by the ECB.
Post the UK leaving the EU, the question is whether the ECB would continue to offer what is essentially unlimited backing for a UK commercial organisation, or whether they would require that the organisation is EU based, and under ECB control and regulation.
Banks, by the way, really don't want the clearing landscape to fragment. Right now, LCH.Clearnet works out how much Goldman Sachs has to leave with them in collateral. If Goldman is long DAX futures, and short FTSE ones, then the risk is the divergence between those two indices. As a result, the amount of collateral is relatively small. (Index movements are pretty highly correlated.) In the event of fragmentation, Goldman would need to put up collateral (and probably more collateral as it would have two different positions, both of which would be subject to more volatility). A doubling (or more) of the amount of collateral required would have a very negative impact on the profitability of large investment banks.
Isn't the solution for the Bank to give the guarantee and just hold a very large reserve of EUR? At least that's what I've been lead to believe by people who work on such things.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
He also said of crime that we should try "to understand less and punish more," which I think is the stupidest thing I have ever heard said in actual language, as opposed to syntax-free grunts.
We really need to stop people talking this nonsense. It was absolutely a political project and sold as such from day one. And if a non-political European Union is possible I for one have no idea what it would look like.
NAFTA, but in Europe.
You don't want NAFTA in Europe. Because NAFTA is explicitly controlled by the US, in that ISDS Tribunals have three judges on them, two of which must always be American. (Also ISDS Tribunals operate in secret, which given they have the effective right to over-rule local law seems absolutely wrong to me.)
Exactly. In practice if you adopted it in Europe it truly would mean German hegemony, plus customs barriers all over the continent. It's completely inadequate for our needs.
We really need to stop people talking this nonsense. It was absolutely a political project and sold as such from day one. And if a non-political European Union is possible I for one have no idea what it would look like.
NAFTA, but in Europe.
You don't want NAFTA in Europe. Because NAFTA is explicitly controlled by the US, in that ISDS Tribunals have three judges on them, two of which must always be American. (Also ISDS Tribunals operate in secret, which given they have the effective right to over-rule local law seems absolutely wrong to me.)
I didn't specifically mean NAFTA. Something similar to it. Maybe with a 5 judge panel being drawn from neutral countries.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
He also said of crime that we should try "to understand less and punish more," which I think is the stupidest thing I have ever heard said in actual language, as opposed to syntax-free grunts.
I think Major actually said we should "understand less and condemn more".
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models
We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.
EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.
I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.
I think all of the latter are there because there's so much money in London, at least everything except insurance.
...surely the Conservatives had brought forward their candidate selection process -- a happy coincidence or evidence that at least the possibility of a snap election was being considered?
That's news to me! The election was called on April 18th and I wasn't selected until May 3rd.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
He also said of crime that we should try "to understand less and punish more," which I think is the stupidest thing I have ever heard said in actual language, as opposed to syntax-free grunts.
I think Major actually said we should "understand less and condemn more".
The actual quotation was, 'Society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less.' I've heard worse. 'Have our cake and eat it' being a recent example.
May was right to call an election. Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.
Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.
The problem was not the election. The problem was her bullshit campaign.
Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.
Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.
I agree on all points.
With the benefit of hindsight the biggest mistake was not to call the election for the same day as the council elections.
Also, because there was no expectation of a June election the Tory Party was not prepared and was running around selecting candidates.
The story became stale as the weeks progressed and the two intermissions destroyed any momentum in the Tory campaign. That was no-one's fault but the terrorists'. It just shows what havoc can be wrought during an election campaign.
I was surprised by the result. I know others, including you David were not and hats off to you for being more prescient than the rest of us.
The weird thing is here in Westmorland we did much better in the General Election than in the county elections the month before. We could tell we were doing well - perhaps that is why we didn't see what was happening elsewhere. I have never seen the national party employees in the field work anything like as hard as they did last year
Again, a definition - to be fair a much better one than TSE's - but not the etymology.
Why was the word 'melt' selected from tens of thousands of other options to describe Labour members who are insufficiently enthusiastic about JC? Are true believers 'ice cold', or are there views just 'frozen' since the 1917 revolution?
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
The EU's position is that we are leaving the EU. They are under no illusions about this.
I think the key thing here is to ignore the headlines. They are completely misleading and bear almost not relation to what are - by and large - reasonably fruitful discussions that happen between officials.
There are still some areas of disagreement, of course. The EU is being quite aggressive in pursuit of its own interests. It is also playing hardball because it knows we need a deal more than they do.
However, they are also aware that it is simply too expensive not to come to an agreement.
For this reason, while it may be at the 11th hour (or even 11:52, or even after a last minute two week extension), there will be a deal.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
Major had by far the greatest business success outside politics. I know people that worked with him at Carlyle Group, and they thought him very bright.
John Major's great crime was not to have been to Oxford, and therefore he could never be taken seriously by the Establishment -- like Jim Callaghan, Neil Kinnock and IDS.
Isn't the solution for the Bank to give the guarantee and just hold a very large reserve of EUR? At least that's what I've been lead to believe by people who work on such things.
I think the solution is that there are two regulated clearing houses owned by a common parent - one inside the EU, guaranteed by the ECB, and one in the UK, guaranteed by the BoE. The issue is about how capital flows between the two subsidiaries in the event of a default: the BoE won't want to subsidise losses of an EU subsidiary, and the ECB will feel similarly about a UK one. But I suspect that can be sorted too.
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models
We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.
EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.
I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.
I think all of the latter are there because there's so much money in London, at least everything except insurance.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
The EU's position is that we are leaving the EU. They are under no illusions about this.
I think the key thing here is to ignore the headlines. They are completely misleading and bear almost not relation to what are - by and large - reasonably fruitful discussions that happen between officials.
There are still some areas of disagreement, of course. The EU is being quite aggressive in pursuit of its own interests. It is also playing hardball because it knows we need a deal more than they do.
However, they are also aware that it is simply too expensive not to come to an agreement.
For this reason, while it may be at the 11th hour (or even 11:52, or even after a last minute two week extension), there will be a deal.
There will be a deal because "Better than nothing but worse than what we have" is a big negotiating space. The question is how much better than nothing and how much worse than now?
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
The EU's position is that we are leaving the EU. They are under no illusions about this.
I think this statement is accurate about the EU's view of this.
First, containing Britain in the existing European system as a member state, achieved by reversing Brexit. This strategy is the most preferred but least likely. Wisely, Brussels does not promote this path, but neither does it act to exclude it.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
Well quite. However, the narrative is an important psychological animus. How many anti-Tories in 2015, thought "We will have a Hung Parliament anyway... Miliband? meh...and ended up voting Green UKIP or not at all?
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
Major had by far the greatest business success outside politics. I know people that worked with him at Carlyle Group, and they thought him very bright.
John Major's great crime was not to have been to Oxford, and therefore he could never be taken seriously by the Establishment -- like Jim Callaghan, Neil Kinnock and IDS.
John Major remains the only person in the history of ever, to have run away from the circus to join a bank...
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.
It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.
Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.
Perhaps thick is a little unfair.
How about lacking the following: Charisma Fidelity Intellecutal prowess Strategic vision for his party or country Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
Major had by far the greatest business success outside politics. I know people that worked with him at Carlyle Group, and they thought him very bright.
John Major's great crime was not to have been to Oxford, and therefore he could never be taken seriously by the Establishment -- like Jim Callaghan, Neil Kinnock and IDS.
Or Winston Churchill, Gordon Brown and Jeremy Corbyn none of whom went to Oxbridge either (albeit Churchill went to Harrow and like IDS to Sandhurst)
Isn't the solution for the Bank to give the guarantee and just hold a very large reserve of EUR? At least that's what I've been lead to believe by people who work on such things.
I think the solution is that there are two regulated clearing houses owned by a common parent - one inside the EU, guaranteed by the ECB, and one in the UK, guaranteed by the BoE. The issue is about how capital flows between the two subsidiaries in the event of a default: the BoE won't want to subsidise losses of an EU subsidiary, and the ECB will feel similarly about a UK one. But I suspect that can be sorted too.
That makes sense, but it requires the EU to agree to something that they have made such a huge deal over.
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models
We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.
EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.
I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.
I think all of the latter are there because there's so much money in London, at least everything except insurance.
Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.
We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models
We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.
EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.
I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.
I think all of the latter are there because there's so much money in London, at least everything except insurance.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
No, they are not equivalent positions. Polling suggested a monster Tory majority was in the offing. Many found that troubling. A small Tory majority however, would have been significantly less troubling.
I would argue that the idea that a Corbyn majority of one - that could still pass his bat-shit crazy economic platform - is in the same order of worry as a monster Tory majority in terms of being unpalatable. Votes will be cast accordingly.
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
The EU's position is that we are leaving the EU. They are under no illusions about this.
I think this statement is accurate about the EU's view of this.
First, containing Britain in the existing European system as a member state, achieved by reversing Brexit. This strategy is the most preferred but least likely. Wisely, Brussels does not promote this path, but neither does it act to exclude it.
They are doing a lot to exclude it, although I accept that they might not realise that they are.
Isn't the solution for the Bank to give the guarantee and just hold a very large reserve of EUR? At least that's what I've been lead to believe by people who work on such things.
I think the solution is that there are two regulated clearing houses owned by a common parent - one inside the EU, guaranteed by the ECB, and one in the UK, guaranteed by the BoE. The issue is about how capital flows between the two subsidiaries in the event of a default: the BoE won't want to subsidise losses of an EU subsidiary, and the ECB will feel similarly about a UK one. But I suspect that can be sorted too.
That makes sense, but it requires the EU to agree to something that they have made such a huge deal over.
I think it gives them exactly what they ask: i.e. a Eurozone domiciled entity, with its own capital, regulated by the ECB, but minimises financial services disruption.
However, the complexity comes in ensuring that the UK entity cannot take down the EU one, and vice-versa. And also, in correctly apportioning where collateral should sit inside the structure. (With a flexible method for allowing it to be moved around according to where an entity's liabilities are.)
It's not impossible, but it probably needs some work.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
You know when we were after a definition of 'melt'.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
There are 1.3 million fewer 10-19 year-olds than there are 20-29 year-olds. If the current trends hold (turnout increases with age, the older you are then the more likely you are to vote Tory) and everything else remains as-is, then, over the next 10 year, Labour would have to work hard just to stand still.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
The turnout in many Conservative seats was slightly disappointing, which suggests they didn't max out their popular vote, although if true it obviously wouldn't help them so much in marginal seats. For instance 2017 was the first time turnout was lower in Southend West than Hackney North. There are other examples.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
You know when we were after a definition of 'melt'.
There you go, chaps.
Well as I have no idea what it means I'll assume it's a compliment.
John Major's great crime was not to have been to Oxford, and therefore he could never be taken seriously by the Establishment -- like Jim Callaghan, Neil Kinnock and IDS.
Rubbish.
John Major's great crime was pretending to be an arch-Thatcherite in order to win the leadership, then governing according to the Heseltine manifesto afterwards. You can hardly blame the Tory right for feeling very aggrieved with his duplicity on that - without the influential backing of Tebbit and indeed the Lady herself, Major wouldn't have got within a mile of the leadership in 1990.
It doesn't surprise me that arch Lib Dems like Mike Smithson admire Major given how much his rise to the top owes to their "pretend to be all things to all men" campaign philosophy.
(PS "The Establishment" generally rated Callaghan quite highly, and as HYUFD says you have other non-Oxford examples such as Churchill and Brown).
It is not GW Pharmaceuticals fault that there is such resistance to the medicinal use of cannabis in this country. I find it weird when you think how much we use morphine. The evidence that cannabis is useful for many chronic conditions is becoming overwhelming.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that there are compounds in cannabis which are beneficial in some conditions, which is what the GW Pharma business is built on (isolating the ones which are useful). The problem is that cannabis is so complicated that you are effectively taking a whole bunch of other highly active and not very well-understood drugs along with the ones which are beneficial.
Indeed. All the more reason to remove any restrictions on the trial use and testing of this substance. Our current law is just silly.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
No, they are not equivalent positions. Polling suggested a monster Tory majority was in the offing. Many found that troubling. A small Tory majority however, would have been significantly less troubling.
I would argue that the idea that a Corbyn majority of one - that could still pass his bat-shit crazy economic platform - is in the same order of worry as a monster Tory majority in terms of being unpalatable. Votes will be cast accordingly.
Can’t imagine what Mrs May did to piss off the oldies.
It was the not-quite-so-oldies that got pissed off. Those who before too long were relying on getting a majority stake in Bank of Mum'n'Dad. The truly elderly seemed to be more understanding of what she was trying to achieve with the "Dementia Tax".
And I bring as Exhibt A the seat of Torbay, which has many more than its fair share of crumblies. If they really hated it, you might have expected the Tory vote to be in some trouble. Instead, the majority rose from 3,286 to 14,283.
The Tory election campaign, despite its flaws, got our vote (and more) out. We didn't expect the opposition vote to coalesce around Corbz.
Which is why the 2022 electoral strategy needs to be different to 2015. We need to keep our vote much higher than 2015, and chip away at the unity of the broadest Labour church since the 70s....
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
There are 1.3 million fewer 10-19 year-olds than there are 20-29 year-olds. If the current trends hold (turnout increases with age, the older you are then the more likely you are to vote Tory) and everything else remains as-is, then, over the next 10 year, Labour would have to work hard just to stand still.
Which is true.However, the cross-over age at which one is more likely to vote Tory has been rising also, as has the age of home ownership (another key indicator).
John Major's great crime was not to have been to Oxford, and therefore he could never be taken seriously by the Establishment -- like Jim Callaghan, Neil Kinnock and IDS.
Rubbish.
John Major's great crime was pretending to be an arch-Thatcherite in order to win the leadership, then governing according to the Heseltine manifesto afterwards. You can hardly blame the Tory right for feeling very aggrieved with his duplicity on that - without the influential backing of Tebbit and indeed the Lady herself, Major wouldn't have got within a mile of the leadership in 1990.
It doesn't surprise me that arch Lib Dems like Mike Smithson admire Major given how much his rise to the top owes to their "pretend to be all things to all men" campaign philosophy.
(PS "The Establishment" generally rated Callaghan quite highly, and as HYUFD says you have other non-Oxford examples such as Churchill and Brown).
It was their media treatment as well. Churchill was a long time ago, was a minor aristocrat when these things mattered, yet still was widely mistrusted. Corbyn and indeed Brown, like Major, were sneered at from the start by the posh papers and BBC.
That is not to say there are not other reasons to criticise these people but not being Oxford men is a factor.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
There are 1.3 million fewer 10-19 year-olds than there are 20-29 year-olds. If the current trends hold (turnout increases with age, the older you are then the more likely you are to vote Tory) and everything else remains as-is, then, over the next 10 year, Labour would have to work hard just to stand still.
Which is true.However, the cross-over age at which one is more likely to vote Tory has been rising also, as has the age of home ownership (another key indicator).
What the Tories need to do is help a new generation become homeowners. The Tories need to be the party of aspiration not the party of privilege.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
There are 1.3 million fewer 10-19 year-olds than there are 20-29 year-olds. If the current trends hold (turnout increases with age, the older you are then the more likely you are to vote Tory) and everything else remains as-is, then, over the next 10 year, Labour would have to work hard just to stand still.
Many of the 1.3 million will be immigrants without voting rights. I don’t think the Tories can be quite so relaxed, as the fall in home ownership delays the onset of ‘adulting’ which slowly transforms spendthrift students into staunch Tories.
FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-
"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?
Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."
We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.
And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.
For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.
Have you got a new business?
You never mention it...
I have mentioned it on 3 occasions: last autumn when I asked for advice about website content, on February 12th when it was launched and on March 3rd, when I was asking for advice about Things To Do in Hong Kong. It was Mr @Topping who mentioned it first today.
Compare to all the other comments and thread headers I have written in the last 5 months.....
But for the unfortunate chocolate prejudice, you would be an actual national treasure.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
There are 1.3 million fewer 10-19 year-olds than there are 20-29 year-olds. If the current trends hold (turnout increases with age, the older you are then the more likely you are to vote Tory) and everything else remains as-is, then, over the next 10 year, Labour would have to work hard just to stand still.
Which is true.However, the cross-over age at which one is more likely to vote Tory has been rising also, as has the age of home ownership (another key indicator).
What the Tories need to do is help a new generation become homeowners. The Tories need to be the party of aspiration not the party of privilege.
Too often they are seen as the Party of the Landlord. Of the rentiers.
It is not GW Pharmaceuticals fault that there is such resistance to the medicinal use of cannabis in this country. I find it weird when you think how much we use morphine. The evidence that cannabis is useful for many chronic conditions is becoming overwhelming.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that there are compounds in cannabis which are beneficial in some conditions, which is what the GW Pharma business is built on (isolating the ones which are useful). The problem is that cannabis is so complicated that you are effectively taking a whole bunch of other highly active and not very well-understood drugs along with the ones which are beneficial.
Indeed. All the more reason to remove any restrictions on the trial use and testing of this substance. Our current law is just silly.
Indeed it is, and I support a review of the law. However, some dozen or so years ago there was am anti obesity preparation brought to the market which was intended to affect the cannabinoid sensitive recepetors in the brain and so reduce appetite. I was at the time employed to give pharmaceutical advice to a GP practice and after listening carefully to the company representative advised that in my opinion IF ‘my’ practice used it, it should be with extreme caution and only on those patients where we were satisfied that was a small as possible a chance of an addictive personality.
After a very short period of availablity...... on prescription only ...... the product was withdrawn because of the cannabis like side effects.
And as Charles and Foxy will confirm it’s by no means easy to get a new drug onto the market, so there must have been extensive testing.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
The turnout in many Conservative seats was slightly disappointing, which suggests they didn't max out their popular vote, although if true it obviously wouldn't help them so much in marginal seats. For instance 2017 was the first time turnout was lower in Southend West than Hackney North. There are other examples.
That assumes those in safe Conservative seats who didn't vote were Conservatives. That does not necessarily follow.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Which is why the 2022 electoral strategy needs to be different to 2015. We need to keep our vote much higher than 2015, and chip away at the unity of the broadest Labour church since the 70s....
Labour's vote in the 1970s wasn't a broad church, it's just that the electorate was much more dominated by traditional working class voters than it is today, so much so that it was possible to win an election with say 75% of working class votes and practically nothing from the middle class.
By contrast a Tory victory in those days required a 30-40% vote share from working class voters, those of the Alf Garnett stereotype.
I'd say Blair's voters were probably a broader church than Corbyn's .
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Farnborough, Biggin Hill. I reckon all sorts of dodgy stuff comes via such airfields.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
I wouldn't have thought it was hard to smuggle them in. The quantities required are minuscule.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
There are 1.3 million fewer 10-19 year-olds than there are 20-29 year-olds. If the current trends hold (turnout increases with age, the older you are then the more likely you are to vote Tory) and everything else remains as-is, then, over the next 10 year, Labour would have to work hard just to stand still.
Many of the 1.3 million will be immigrants without voting rights. I don’t think the Tories can be quite so relaxed, as the fall in home ownership delays the onset of ‘adulting’ which slowly transforms spendthrift students into staunch Tories.
Some bit not all. If you go through population pyramids back into the 90’s then there is a distinct cohort bulge.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
I wouldn't have thought it was hard to smuggle them in. The quantities required are minuscule.
Did somebody say diplomatic bag...cos we know those Eastern European diplomats are never spies....obviously nobody told Jezza back in the day.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
I wouldn't have thought it was hard to smuggle them in. The quantities required are minuscule.
Did somebody say diplomatic bag...cos we know those Eastern European diplomats are never spies....obviously nobody told Jezza back in the day.
Broke man at the bottom of his caravan seems lower risk of embarrassment.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
A rainbow, eh? And all those pots of gold at the end of it that Corbyn was offering. They were genuine and moving too, I'll bet.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
So if the narrative next time is that Corbyn is ahead, or at least that it will be competitive, that motivation will disappear?
The trouble with that type of argument, is knowing how far it recurses. How many anti-tories will think that other anti-tories will have stood down because Corbyn looks competitive and that it is therefore more important than ever to vote for Corbyn?
I think it is easy to be too cynical and negative. I went into the 2017 campaign feeling negative about just about everything and deciding to cast my vote to kick the Tories for the mess. It seemed obvious that such a vote should be for the Lib Dems who were in 2nd place in my neck of the woods.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
A rainbow, eh? And all those pots of gold at the end of it that Corbyn was offering. They were genuine and moving too, I'll bet.
It better be genuine. McDonnell has already spent it.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
When were you last subjected to a customs search which would have detected small quantities of any of these things as you entered the UK?
What you mean you don't go down the red channel when you are carrying a deadly nerve agent for an enemy state?
They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.
The great question is, will we?
I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.
They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked.
The main decision of the summit conference was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
Macmillan and Heath didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes on Europe. Blair's greatest crime was turning his pro-Europeanism as a stick to beat the Tories with.
We really need to stop people talking this nonsense. It was absolutely a political project and sold as such from day one. And if a non-political European Union is possible I for one have no idea what it would look like.
Anne JGP : You are right, of course, but it really isn't nonsense. I was 100% a joiner in the referendum 40-odd years ago and I was convinced by what was widely spoken & published by politicians that it wasn't aiming at a political union.
I state that with utter certainty, because my attitude at the time was "What a shame it isn't - I'd vote for that".
It is too easy to forget how much difference the internet has made in the dissemination of information. At that time. it didn't necessarily follow that what was said in one place - parliament, say - would necessarily be available to ordinary people. Politicians really could tell different stories to different audiences, and very few people would become aware of it.
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
I think that was pretty obvious given the description of the symptoms and the speed with which they were affected.
How do they get these toxic agents into the country undetected?
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
Farnborough, Biggin Hill. I reckon all sorts of dodgy stuff comes via such airfields.
And not a great distance from Salisbury to depart the same way....
Alison Morgan, prosecuting, told jurors that during a Home Office immigration interview in Croydon in January 2016, Mr Hassan was asked if he was, or had been part of a terror group in Iraq before he sought asylum in the UK.
The jury heard he told officials that he had been taken by force by Isis (the Islamic State group), who had threatened to kill his uncle and brother if he resisted.
Asked in the Home Office interview whether he had had any training from the Islamic State group Mr Hassan allegedly said: "They trained us on how to kill. It was all religious based".
But he denied the Islamic State group had sent him to Europe to work for them.
The court also heard that a worker for the charity Barnardos, who spoke Arabic, allegedly caught him listening to a "call-to-arms" song.
On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.
But it is super easy to explain and understand. A big Tory majority simply terrifies non-Tories...Labour voting was the only way to stop it in most constituencies. This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
And ANY Corbyn majority terrifies non-Socialists. Last time ANY level of Labour majority was a nonsense, as all - Labour candidates included - agreed.
Next time? Not so much....
You are reinforcing my point there. The 2 parties are so far apart now that one is forced to choose. I understand the argument that Corbyn maxed out his vote last time. The problem is that the Conservatives probably did so too.
No, they are not equivalent positions. Polling suggested a monster Tory majority was in the offing. Many found that troubling. A small Tory majority however, would have been significantly less troubling.
I would argue that the idea that a Corbyn majority of one - that could still pass his bat-shit crazy economic platform - is in the same order of worry as a monster Tory majority in terms of being unpalatable. Votes will be cast accordingly.
Comments
"Britain First leader and deputy leader guilty of hate crimes"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43320121
And I bring as Exhibt A the seat of Torbay, which has many more than its fair share of crumblies. If they really hated it, you might have expected the Tory vote to be in some trouble. Instead, the majority rose from 3,286 to 14,283.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57355537.html
According to the Tim Shipman book, she really did only decide to call an election on that walk in Wales, and even Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were only told a few days before she officially announced it. There'd been absolutely no preparations.
This visceral dislike remains a mystery to many Conservatives.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/cbt_course_e/c1s3p1_e.htm
CETA (the Canada deal) allows mode 2 (you go abroad to get your services) and mode 3 (the supplier sets up a subsidiary in the target territory). Crucially you don't get mode 1 where you can buy services from another country with national protections and legal recourse through your own courts. Consumers of services in France can buy mode 2 services from Korea, say, but they don't on the whole. They do however buy considerable amounts of mode 1 services from the UK. After Brexit, they won't be able to, according to the draft guidelines.
"Remember 2017 when Labour thought they were a government in waiting, when the polls said that Corbyn would be prime minister, before Labour crashed and burned in 2022?".
What's good for the gander is good for the goose.
This is all about the amount of capital that banks are required to put up at clearing houses. So, let's say that you are UBS and you have a very large position in DAX futures. You will need to leave security with the clearing house to make sure that you will be able to meet your obligations if the price moves against you.
The big clearing houses are essentially government (or central bank) backed. Let's say that every European stock exchange lost two-thirds of its value tomorrow. There would be a lot of losers (and a lot of winners). But the losers may not be able to pay up. In those circumstances, the central bank would step in to ensure the integrity of the financial system.
Now, right now, pretty much all clearing in European/UK derivatives is done by LCH.Clearnet. For Sterling based products (and in particular interest rate derivatives), it is implicitly backed by the Bank of England. And for Euro based, by the ECB.
Post the UK leaving the EU, the question is whether the ECB would continue to offer what is essentially unlimited backing for a UK commercial organisation, or whether they would require that the organisation is EU based, and under ECB control and regulation.
Banks, by the way, really don't want the clearing landscape to fragment. Right now, LCH.Clearnet works out how much Goldman Sachs has to leave with them in collateral. If Goldman is long DAX futures, and short FTSE ones, then the risk is the divergence between those two indices. As a result, the amount of collateral is relatively small. (Index movements are pretty highly correlated.) In the event of fragmentation, Goldman would need to put up collateral (and probably more collateral as it would have two different positions, both of which would be subject to more volatility). A doubling (or more) of the amount of collateral required would have a very negative impact on the profitability of large investment banks.
How about lacking the following:
Charisma
Fidelity
Intellecutal prowess
Strategic vision for his party or country
Tactical political nous
Against all that, he did give us the cones hotline.
Also, because there was no expectation of a June election the Tory Party was not prepared and was running around selecting candidates.
The story became stale as the weeks progressed and the two intermissions destroyed any momentum in the Tory campaign. That was no-one's fault but the terrorists'. It just shows what havoc can be wrought during an election campaign.
I was surprised by the result. I know others, including you David were not and hats off to you for being more prescient than the rest of us.
The weird thing is here in Westmorland we did much better in the General Election than in the county elections the month before. We could tell we were doing well - perhaps that is why we didn't see what was happening elsewhere. I have never seen the national party employees in the field work anything like as hard as they did last year
Obviously...
I think the key thing here is to ignore the headlines. They are completely misleading and bear almost not relation to what are - by and large - reasonably fruitful discussions that happen between officials.
There are still some areas of disagreement, of course. The EU is being quite aggressive in pursuit of its own interests. It is also playing hardball because it knows we need a deal more than they do.
However, they are also aware that it is simply too expensive not to come to an agreement.
For this reason, while it may be at the 11th hour (or even 11:52, or even after a last minute two week extension), there will be a deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/britain-eu-motives-brexit
First, containing Britain in the existing European system as a member state, achieved by reversing Brexit. This strategy is the most preferred but least likely. Wisely, Brussels does not promote this path, but neither does it act to exclude it.
But as the campaign went on the Labour Party's pitch was just so compelling. They had a manifesto with a programme. They were out doing the rallies - coverage of which I found very appealing. In fact towards the end when there was a photo of Corbyn speaking to a huge crowd when a rainbow appeared was really moving. It felt really genuine. This is what a political SHOULD be like. The movement in the polls made me wonder if they just might pull it off after all, and if they did I wanted to be a part of it.
Next time? Not so much....
I would argue that the idea that a Corbyn majority of one - that could still pass his bat-shit crazy economic platform - is in the same order of worry as a monster Tory majority in terms of being unpalatable. Votes will be cast accordingly.
However, the complexity comes in ensuring that the UK entity cannot take down the EU one, and vice-versa. And also, in correctly apportioning where collateral should sit inside the structure. (With a flexible method for allowing it to be moved around according to where an entity's liabilities are.)
It's not impossible, but it probably needs some work.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/07/russian-spy-police-appeal-for-witnesses-as-cobra-meeting-takes-place
They are pinpointing VX or Sarin?
If correct would this mean the UK has been the victim of a biological terrorist attack?
There you go, chaps.
John Major's great crime was pretending to be an arch-Thatcherite in order to win the leadership, then governing according to the Heseltine manifesto afterwards. You can hardly blame the Tory right for feeling very aggrieved with his duplicity on that - without the influential backing of Tebbit and indeed the Lady herself, Major wouldn't have got within a mile of the leadership in 1990.
It doesn't surprise me that arch Lib Dems like Mike Smithson admire Major given how much his rise to the top owes to their "pretend to be all things to all men" campaign philosophy.
(PS "The Establishment" generally rated Callaghan quite highly, and as HYUFD says you have other non-Oxford examples such as Churchill and Brown).
I thought she was limited in the times she could call the election because of overcoming the Fixed-term Act.
The Tory election campaign, despite its flaws, got our vote (and more) out. We didn't expect the opposition vote to coalesce around Corbz.
Which is why the 2022 electoral strategy needs to be different to 2015. We need to keep our vote much higher than 2015, and chip away at the unity of the broadest Labour church since the 70s....
That is not to say there are not other reasons to criticise these people but not being Oxford men is a factor.
However, some dozen or so years ago there was am anti obesity preparation brought to the market which was intended to affect the cannabinoid sensitive recepetors in the brain and so reduce appetite.
I was at the time employed to give pharmaceutical advice to a GP practice and after listening carefully to the company representative advised that in my opinion IF ‘my’ practice used it, it should be with extreme caution and only on those patients where we were satisfied that was a small as possible a chance of an addictive personality.
After a very short period of availablity...... on prescription only ...... the product was withdrawn because of the cannabis like side effects.
And as Charles and Foxy will confirm it’s by no means easy to get a new drug onto the market, so there must have been extensive testing.
I could never understand how they got Plutonium into the country and managed to spread it all over London without anyone detecting it? Presumably all these toxic agents still have to be smuggled in through customs, etc?
Or are these toxic substances already here in the country?
By contrast a Tory victory in those days required a 30-40% vote share from working class voters, those of the Alf Garnett stereotype.
I'd say Blair's voters were probably a broader church than Corbyn's .
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/
The housing thing is an important but separate matter.
Anne JGP :
You are right, of course, but it really isn't nonsense. I was 100% a joiner in the referendum 40-odd years ago and I was convinced by what was widely spoken & published by politicians that it wasn't aiming at a political union.
I state that with utter certainty, because my attitude at the time was "What a shame it isn't - I'd vote for that".
It is too easy to forget how much difference the internet has made in the dissemination of information. At that time. it didn't necessarily follow that what was said in one place - parliament, say - would necessarily be available to ordinary people. Politicians really could tell different stories to different audiences, and very few people would become aware of it.
Good evening, everybody.
edited to try to sort out blockquotes
The jury heard he told officials that he had been taken by force by Isis (the Islamic State group), who had threatened to kill his uncle and brother if he resisted.
Asked in the Home Office interview whether he had had any training from the Islamic State group Mr Hassan allegedly said: "They trained us on how to kill. It was all religious based".
But he denied the Islamic State group had sent him to Europe to work for them.
The court also heard that a worker for the charity Barnardos, who spoke Arabic, allegedly caught him listening to a "call-to-arms" song.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43318098
So all you have to do to is claim I didn't have any choice over all that terrorist training you did and you are a-ok.
I'm multilingual, I'm the king of subtlety and nuance, great on my feet.
I wouldn't fall for honey traps either.