If it's thought that getting rid of Rudd might help the Tories hold places like Westminster and Wandsworth than I think she'll probably be sacrificed for the sake of the party.
Given the whole affair has been dragged out, and she's stuck to her guns, and so removal would require a shift in the party's intended approach to tough it out, I don't think there's much that can be done to hold various place - if this matter has hit things sufficiently to cost them in specific places, it's too late to save them IMO. They decided she could see things through, a gamble that nothing further of substance would cut through (there was bound to be more emotive tales of the impact of the policy, correctly or in error), and that gamble has not paid off.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Because Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties; the government does.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Because Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties; the government does.
In such a situation would you avocate the government ignore a HoC vote to remain in a CU?
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
On the basis that the rebels might buckle if you threatened an election over it. Particularly if they were willing to deselect them before it.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Speaking to my lifelong Tory member mother, she feels the same, as does my Ex Kipper dad. CU will not go down well, and may well trigger a party Leadership confidence vote. I suspect that she would survive the vote and be protected from a further one for a year though. That will leave her a lame duck, but in that year she would be bulletproof.
If my understanding of Tory party procedures is correct.
How useful would a poll be for the locals? There are so many factors at play that polls might be almost as misleading as they are for general elections.
We've had London polling, although some on the regions would be interesting. Does anyone know of any?
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
I dont believe we can remain in 'the' Customs Union without remaining members of the EU. We could be in 'a' customs union but that would have all the severe disadvantages of the Turkish position.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
I dont believe we can remain in 'the' Customs Union without remaining members of the EU. We could be in 'a' customs union but that would have all the severe disadvantages of the Turkish position.
That's why I lodged the questions in terms of 'a' CU not 'the' CU.
For those of us hoping "Global Britain" would create a single transparent equal playing field for all those seeking to enter Britain legally, this is hugely disappointing. It would have been nice to have a process which would treat all prospective migrants equally, fairly, with dignity and to have issues resolved as quickly as possible.
But all countries discriminate to a certain extent based on nationality, and almost all favour close neighbours.
Why?
1. Nationality is a useful heuristic. (To give a silly example: we can't expect our immigration authorities to treat all universities as of equal merit, but nor can we expect them to be in charge of rating 10,000 educational institutions.)
2. Because countries tend to have close relations with their neighbours.
So, NZ and Australia discriminate in favour of each other, as do Canada and the US, as do we and Ireland.
We will never have completely non-discriminatory immigration policies, and nor should we have. It's good to keep things like working holiday visas for Australians and Canadians.
Why should our system not be non discriminatory? The fact other countries choose to discriminate in favour of particular neighbours is no reason for us to do so. Apart from the language advantages why would it be better for us to give preferential treatment to a Canadian rather than a Peruvian? One of the reasons for getting out of the EU was to put an end to such discriminatory practices which act against our best interests. We should not be swapping one kind of favouritism for another.
If the question is, can we be *less* discriminatory, then the answer is yes we can and should. But I think it's a pipedream to think that we can be non-discriminatory.
Favouritism is a useful heuristic: we have more confidence a German engineering graduate is better qualified than a Gabonese one. It may be wrong, but it is an efficient way to make a judgment.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Spite is a powerful motivator - IIRC just yesterday on here we had some stating if it was BINO they would vote for Corbyn as punishment, even though the definition of BINO used was essentially what Corbyn and co (currently) also support.
Now, we know that a majority of the Commons wanted to Remain, and so the only reason they voted to Brexit was because of the referendum vote making opposing that difficult, so the only reason a CU might pass there is because MPs feel enough of the country would back that when they wouldn't regarding simply stopping the process altogether. But for May critics, if this is the only chance in a generation, possibly ever, to achieve what they feel is the only appropriate Brexit for the country, then frankly they should put that above party loyalty. Will a Corbyn government, facing the sorts of constraints any government is under, and however bad it might be, be worse, in their eyes, than probably never getting to renegotiate the kind of post-Brexit settlement we have?
If they think no, then why shouldn't they bring down May?
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
I would agree but the HOC numbers make it very likely and no leader, even JRM, can change the opposition to leaving a customs union
Unlike the Single Market, The Customs Union is a specific body within the EU. Under the current treaties there is no way to stay on the CU but not in the EU. Unless you think Parliament can force the EU to write its treaties it isn't going to happen.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Speaking to my lifelong Tory member mother, she feels the same, as does my Ex Kipper dad. CU will not go down well, and may well trigger a party Leadership confidence vote. I suspect that she would survive the vote and be protected from a further one for a year though. That will leave her a lame duck, but in that year she would be bulletproof.
If my understanding of Tory party procedures is correct.
Why would surviving a leadership challenge leave TMay a lame duck? Surely it would strengthen her hand?
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
To find someone who can actually run a coherent (and popular) election campaign and then go to the country again in the Autumn?
On Javid moving to the Home Office, speaking as someone working in Local Government, we heard quite a bit about Pickles in his time at DCLG, but I cannot say I've noticed anything from Javid. Perhaps he's putting most of his effort into the Housing part of the department.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
I would agree but the HOC numbers make it very likely and no leader, even JRM, can change the opposition to leaving a customs union
Unlike the Single Market, The Customs Union is a specific body within the EU. Under the current treaties there is no way to stay on the CU but not in the EU. Unless you think Parliament can force the EU to write its treaties it isn't going to happen.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Because Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties; the government does.
In such a situation would you avocate the government ignore a HoC vote to remain in a CU?
Yes. The power of treaty negotiation in this country is delegated to the government. Parliament then ratified or not the resultant negotiated treaty.
But actually, I think your premise is incorrect. If there were the votes for staying in the Customs union then it would have been an issue before now - they're have been two votes on it already, and the Govt have won both:
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
To find someone who can actually run a coherent (and popular) election campaign and then go to the country again in the Autumn?
Hahaha! And risk PM Jezza? I don't think that's at all likely!
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
Because Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties; the government does.
In such a situation would you avocate the government ignore a HoC vote to remain in a CU?
Yes. The power of treaty negotiation in this country is delegated to the government. Parliament then ratified or not the resultant negotiated treaty.
But actually, I think your premise is incorrect. If there were the votes for staying in the Customs union then it would have been an issue before now - they're have been two votes on it already, and the Govt have won both:
Rudd goes over Windrush the spotlight goes straight onto May - who after all is the person who was responsible. Rudd has done a stellar job taking the flack for the PM but the absurdity of Tory MPs defending lie after lie after lie cant go on, no matter how much they want to avoid the likely civil war
Agreed. Even if we accept error rather than lie, and even accepting that Rudd is being a lightning rod, at least in the press on this, it has gone too far. It is hard to see how Rudd can continue on. No one knows everything going on in a department, or every thing they saw, or even everything they ever wrote/dictated/signed, but when a crisis hits if you cannot deal with it, you become a liability. The only reason she hasn't been one is shielding May, but it's getting silly - Gove was even quoted yesterday saying this business had been weaponised to distract from Labour's troubles, as ridiculous as when Labour tried that line.
If it's thought that getting rid of Rudd might help the Tories hold places like Westminster and Wandsworth than I think she'll probably be sacrificed for the sake of the party.
Rudd and Windrush make not a jot of difference in either borough.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Speaking to my lifelong Tory member mother, she feels the same, as does my Ex Kipper dad. CU will not go down well, and may well trigger a party Leadership confidence vote. I suspect that she would survive the vote and be protected from a further one for a year though. That will leave her a lame duck, but in that year she would be bulletproof.
If my understanding of Tory party procedures is correct.
Interesting.
I think if it comes to a vote she loses. The politics is that a victory on numbers isn’t enough in this Parliament.
For those of us hoping "Global Britain" would create a single transparent equal playing field for all those seeking to enter Britain legally, this is hugely disappointing. It would have been nice to have a process which would treat all prospective migrants equally, fairly, with dignity and to have issues resolved as quickly as possible.
But all countries discriminate to a certain extent based on nationality, and almost all favour close neighbours.
Why?
1. Nationality is a useful heuristic. (To give a silly example: we can't expect our immigration authorities to treat all universities as of equal merit, but nor can we expect them to be in charge of rating 10,000 educational institutions.)
2. Because countries tend to have close relations with their neighbours.
So, NZ and Australia discriminate in favour of each other, as do Canada and the US, as do we and Ireland.
We will never have completely non-discriminatory immigration policies, and nor should we have. It's good to keep things like working holiday visas for Australians and Canadians.
Why should our system not be non discriminatory? The fact other countries choose to discriminate in favour of particular neighbours is no reason for us to do so. Apart from the language advantages why would it be better for us to give preferential treatment to a Canadian rather than a Peruvian? One of the reasons for getting out of the EU was to put an end to such discriminatory practices which act against our best interests. We should not be swapping one kind of favouritism for another.
If the question is, can we be *less* discriminatory, then the answer is yes we can and should. But I think it's a pipedream to think that we can be non-discriminatory.
Favouritism is a useful heuristic: we have more confidence a German engineering graduate is better qualified than a Gabonese one. It may be wrong, but it is an efficient way to make a judgment.
That should be a decision left to the individual employer. If they want a German, a Canadian or a Peruvian for the job it should not be a decision dictated by Government preference. I work with some first class Venezuelan Reservoir Engineers. Oil companies want to.employ them and it should not be made more difficult because of Governmental or EU rules giving preference to Italians or Canadians.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Speaking to my lifelong Tory member mother, she feels the same, as does my Ex Kipper dad. CU will not go down well, and may well trigger a party Leadership confidence vote. I suspect that she would survive the vote and be protected from a further one for a year though. That will leave her a lame duck, but in that year she would be bulletproof.
If my understanding of Tory party procedures is correct.
That is of course a correct technical interpretation of the party rules.
But politics is anything but technical. In reality, if May was reallytaking us down a line that was considered beyond the pale, there would be rebels on government business preventing anything passing. The ERG acting as a caucus, would, I imagine, simply abstain on issue after issue until May resigned.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
The Commons has already voted for the Government’s Brexit legislation and in support of its negotiating position.
Given leaving the CU was in the manifesto, if such a vote did arise I suspect it would amount to a vote of no confidence.
That immigration deal would be explosive, effectively rendering Brexit a hollow mockery. Surely Theresa would never go that far.
My guess is that they'll put something in place like that between the US and Canada, where firms have to register, and then can go to an online portal and effectively issue a registered job offer to a Canadian.
In other words, EU countries will have "preferential" access to the UK (and vice-versa), but it will stem the flow of low skilled workers.
If it is limited to high skilled workers, she could get away with it. If low skill workers can still come in huge numbers, May will lose her premiership.
Low skilled workers are much, much less likely to be in salaried employment, and are much more likely to be "cash in hand", so I think it would likely have a significant effect, even if it was theoretically open to all. (Assuming, of course, that the British government started cracking down on the 'cash in hand economy' - which is long overdue.)
We currently have "open borders" with the EU, and net migration in the year to September 2007 was 90,000 (against 205,000 from non-EU countries). That 90,000 was made up of 220,000 coming here and 130,000 leaving. (All stats from Migration Watch.)
.
I believe retail workers are a huge chunk of low skilled labour, and their salaries could certainly be done in a way to qualify for an "open to all" scheme. There really has to be a salary or qualifications limit for it to work.
I'm much more relaxed than you. I think it's great that a 22 year old Brit can go to Paris and work for a year in a Patisserie, and have no particular issue with the Czech girl in my local Starbucks*..
* This was before I moved to LA, of course.
Sounds like you are now moving the goalposts from your original "low skilled workers would be mainly locked out" claim.
I'm talking more about the views of the general public. They are far more sceptical of immigration than you are. I would also imagine that retail workers, with their much greater exposure to the broader public, add to a feel of "there are a lot of immigrants here" more than other sectors.
I would also add that most shops in the US have American accents serving you. Even in New York you regularly hear them. Certainly in Chicago or DC. That's not true in London.
So apparently this Rudd letter today was already known about and reported - yet Rudd still went on to claim to know bugger all? A bigger fool than I had imagined.
Anyway, she's gone now, so the question once again becomes the perennial - will May do a larger reshuffle given this opportunity? Answer, no.
I'm going to be unbearably smug for the next few days.
It is always nice to tip a 33/1 winner.
Grumble. I had bets on a couple of Cabinet Ministers being the next ones out, at good odds, taken around the time of the Gauke stories, and Rudd did this deliberately to ensure none were a winner for me.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
To find someone who can actually run a coherent (and popular) election campaign and then go to the country again in the Autumn?
Hahaha! And risk PM Jezza? I don't think that's at all likely!
If Parliament insists on the CU (and the government insists that the CU is not compatible with Brexit) then we'll reach an impasse and the only way forward may be yet another election.
I think an election either in late Summer or Autumn is a growing possibility.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
I dont believe we can remain in 'the' Customs Union without remaining members of the EU. We could be in 'a' customs union but that would have all the severe disadvantages of the Turkish position.
That's why I lodged the questions in terms of 'a' CU not 'the' CU.
But 'a' CU is the very worst outcome. It allows countries with trade agreements with the EU to export into your country tariff free but does not allow you to do the same in reverse. That is why Turkey was preparing to.pull out of their CU with the EU if TTIP was signed.
I'll bet she has. With gritted teeth, and wondering how the hell she can move the story on without getting dragged in more herself, given she has Brexit to be dealing with.
So apparently this Rudd letter today was already known about and reported - yet Rudd still went on to claim to know bugger all? A bigger fool than I had imagined.
Anyway, she's gone now, so the question once again becomes the perennial - will May do a larger reshuffle given this opportunity? Answer, no.
So apparently this Rudd letter today was already known about and reported - yet Rudd still went on to claim to know bugger all? A bigger fool than I had imagined.
Anyway, she's gone now, so the question once again becomes the perennial - will May do a larger reshuffle given this opportunity? Answer, no.
So apparently this Rudd letter today was already known about and reported - yet Rudd still went on to claim to know bugger all? A bigger fool than I had imagined.
Anyway, she's gone now, so the question once again becomes the perennial - will May do a larger reshuffle given this opportunity? Answer, no.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Speaking to my lifelong Tory member mother, she feels the same, as does my Ex Kipper dad. CU will not go down well, and may well trigger a party Leadership confidence vote. I suspect that she would survive the vote and be protected from a further one for a year though. That will leave her a lame duck, but in that year she would be bulletproof.
If my understanding of Tory party procedures is correct.
Why would surviving a leadership challenge leave TMay a lame duck? Surely it would strengthen her hand?
It would take her past Brexit, but then there would be a further vote that she would not survive.
In practice, life as a bulletproof lameduck would be anything but comfortable.
Quite so, but there's not votes to call a new election, so as long as they can do enough to get budgets passed year on year, it's here to stay.
At this rate, odds on a Labour landslide are looking better and better - with Corbyn in place, even after 12 years in office and a divisive Brexit that would seem unlikely, but if you add an aura of scandal or incompetence into the mix, and that chance rises despite the Corbyn factor. Certainly the chances of a Labour win are looking good - all they need to do is retain support, perhaps gain a little, and have the Tories dip only a little, and suddenly they are the ones with the options, coalition or otherwise.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
And yet there is probably a majority in the Commons for remaining in a CU; if the Commons votes for a CU what would be the point in Tory Leavers replacing May?
I dont believe we can remain in 'the' Customs Union without remaining members of the EU. We could be in 'a' customs union but that would have all the severe disadvantages of the Turkish position.
That's why I lodged the questions in terms of 'a' CU not 'the' CU.
But 'a' CU is the very worst outcome. It allows countries with trade agreements with the EU to export into your country tariff free but does not allow you to do the same in reverse. That is why Turkey was preparing to.pull out of their CU with the EU if TTIP was signed.
The U.K. could be “offered” (one way) to sweeten the deal in all sorts of future EU trade deals.
Not at all - a new Home Secretary will be appointed and the circus will move on
Many will think Rudd's paying the price for May's bad policy.
Hostile attitude to illegal immigration and targets was started under labour and has continued and as Faisal Islam has just said it is a very popular policy with the public
Not at all - a new Home Secretary will be appointed and the circus will move on
Many will think Rudd's paying the price for May's bad policy.
Yep. The polls have shown that is exactly what people think. It is extraordinary just how few people thought Rudd was responsible for the scandal. I understand why she has resigned based on her subsequent mistakes but she leaves May critically exposed and should she choose to do so she could be a powerful enemy on the back benches.
So apparently this Rudd letter today was already known about and reported - yet Rudd still went on to claim to know bugger all? A bigger fool than I had imagined.
Anyway, she's gone now, so the question once again becomes the perennial - will May do a larger reshuffle given this opportunity? Answer, no.
So apparently this Rudd letter today was already known about and reported - yet Rudd still went on to claim to know bugger all? A bigger fool than I had imagined.
Anyway, she's gone now, so the question once again becomes the perennial - will May do a larger reshuffle given this opportunity? Answer, no.
Maybe the PM will bring back Damian Green?!
Javid.
He would be better as C of E IMO. Given his background in banking and economics rather than Law. If he does become Home Secretary I hope he does not say something stupid like Alan Johnson did when becoming Shadow Chancellor, that comment about needing an economic primer book really undermined him!
Yes, but Labour are even worse! Corbyn finds it hard to even get a front bench together.
It is a pretty remarkable set of options. The government has had a torrid time of it for months, barring one good month for them, but it is still relevant Corbyn's time as LOTO has been so dramatic mostly because of internal party ructions. What are people to do?
It might be my imagination, but it feels like when the options are objectively pretty bad, for either side of the political spectrum at the same time, the political debate becomes that much nastier, since it has to come down to partisan emotion, since it is harder for Tories/Labour to defend/promote their sides on the basis of their actual qualities, so it becomes a slanging match about how awful the other lot are. To a higher degree than usual.
How many cabinet ministers have been forced to resign in the last 6 months? This govt is a walking disaster zone.
Nothing like a marxist Corbyn government would be
With respect BigG, labelling a potential Labour government 'marxist' is a silly as calling the Tories 'fascist'. Both are about the same distance off the mark.
Not at all - a new Home Secretary will be appointed and the circus will move on
Many will think Rudd's paying the price for May's bad policy.
Among regular voters is the idea the policy is bad, or has been very badly implemented? That distinction, if it exists, will be important, though that at the very least it has clearly been badly done means they are taking a hit. If people like a relatively hostile atmosphere then fixing its implementation is easier to sell. If the policy itself has become very unpopular it is a more critical issue.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Would they accept an arrangement.where Northern Ireland stays in the EU customs union, partial single market.and CAP with customs checks at the Irish Sea, possibly leading the DUP to bring down the government and a potential Corbyn government, but which at least would keep the Brexit show on the road until 2020? Would they accept a Brexit of chaos where possibly nothing at all.is agreed with the EU and third countries? Unless something changes those are the alternatives to customs union. There is a real choice to be made.
Yes, but Labour are even worse! Corbyn finds it hard to even get a front bench together.
It is a pretty remarkable set of options. The government has had a torrid time of it for months, barring one good month for them, but it is still relevant Corbyn's time as LOTO has been so dramatic mostly because of internal party ructions. What are people to do?
It might be my imagination, but it feels like when the options are objectively pretty bad, for either side of the political spectrum at the same time, the political debate becomes that much nastier, since it has to come down to partisan emotion, since it is harder for Tories/Labour to defend/promote their sides on the basis of their actual qualities, so it becomes a slanging match about how awful the other lot are. To a higher degree than usual.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Would they accept an arrangement.where Northern Ireland stays in the EU customs union, partial single market.and CAP with customs checks at the Irish Sea, possibly leading the DUP to bring down the government and a potential Corbyn government, but which at least would keep the Brexit show on the road until 2020? Would they accept a Brexit of chaos where possibly nothing at all.is agreed with the EU and third countries? Unless something changes those are the alternatives to customs union. There is a real choice to be made.
Being in a customs union will do absolutely nothing to solve the Irish border question. That is simply a red herring.
How many cabinet ministers have been forced to resign in the last 6 months? This govt is a walking disaster zone.
Nothing like a marxist Corbyn government would be
With respect BigG, labelling a potential Labour government 'marxist' is a silly as calling the Tories 'fascist'. Both are about the same distance off the mark.
Are you saying a Corbyn government would not be hostile to the west and nato and pro Russia and the UK enemies. Of course it would be hard left marxist at its core
Not at all - a new Home Secretary will be appointed and the circus will move on
Many will think Rudd's paying the price for May's bad policy.
Hostile attitude to illegal immigration and targets was started under labour and has continued and as Faisal Islam has just said it is a very popular policy with the public
It's very popular with a minority of the public - a proportion of the 52%.
Not at all - a new Home Secretary will be appointed and the circus will move on
Many will think Rudd's paying the price for May's bad policy.
Hostile attitude to illegal immigration and targets was started under labour and has continued and as Faisal Islam has just said it is a very popular policy with the public
It's very popular with a minority of the public - a proportion of the 52%.
Nonsense - latest sky poll had 53% support with 36% against
Yes, but Labour are even worse! Corbyn finds it hard to even get a front bench together.
It is a pretty remarkable set of options. The government has had a torrid time of it for months, barring one good month for them, but it is still relevant Corbyn's time as LOTO has been so dramatic mostly because of internal party ructions. What are people to do?
It might be my imagination, but it feels like when the options are objectively pretty bad, for either side of the political spectrum at the same time, the political debate becomes that much nastier, since it has to come down to partisan emotion, since it is harder for Tories/Labour to defend/promote their sides on the basis of their actual qualities, so it becomes a slanging match about how awful the other lot are. To a higher degree than usual.
Agreed - very perceptive.
Well, I think that's a pretty good sign I should call it a night, I won't manage two perceptive thoughts in one session.
Good night all.
The initial take - the resignation of a Cabinet Minister, holding one of the Great Offices of State no less, cannot be interpreted as anything but a moment of intense weakness for the government. May is even more deeply exposed than a regular PM would be, given she was the holder before Rudd. The story that prompted this was still in the news and causing trouble. And there is the constant difficulty of Brexit in the background. So this is a potentially significant moment for the government's image, direction and popularity. However, I am unclear on how outraged people are by the intentions of the policy in question. Certainly many of the most outraged are outraged by its intention. But if the general public are more concerned about the incompetence, then the government can mitigate the damage it takes if it is lucky and/or effective.
Sounds like you are now moving the goalposts from your original "low skilled workers would be mainly locked out" claim.
I'm talking more about the views of the general public. They are far more sceptical of immigration than you are. I would also imagine that retail workers, with their much greater exposure to the broader public, add to a feel of "there are a lot of immigrants here" more than other sectors.
I would also add that most shops in the US have American accents serving you. Even in New York you regularly hear them. Certainly in Chicago or DC. That's not true in London.
As another Leave voter, I've been fairly consistent throughout as what I want: that is I want us out of "political" Europe, but I want the closest possible relationship absent that.
I believe that any bureaucracy associated with work permits will act as a tariff. Paperwork is like that: it may not be explicit, but there is a cost with filling in forms and the like. And so as any future relationship we have with the EU will include a degree of paperwork, it will increase the costs of coming here. That will predominantly affect low skill, low wage workers. Now, we can disagree about the amount it will affect flows (I suspect it will have a surprisingly large affect.)
But if this did not have the desired affect, it's very easy to adjust it. We could start with a £50 fee to register a worker. And if that still led to excessive levels of immigration, you could change it: perhaps to £500 or £1,000.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Would they accept an arrangement.where Northern Ireland stays in the EU customs union, partial single market.and CAP with customs checks at the Irish Sea, possibly leading the DUP to bring down the government and a potential Corbyn government, but which at least would keep the Brexit show on the road until 2020? Would they accept a Brexit of chaos where possibly nothing at all.is agreed with the EU and third countries? Unless something changes those are the alternatives to customs union. There is a real choice to be made.
Being in a customs union will do absolutely nothing to solve the Irish border question. That is simply a red herring.
It does because there's a backstop in the proposed withdrawal, which has special arrangements for NI that Theresa May and the DUP object to. Either the parties agree to the arrangement applying to the whole UK, or the EU drops the clause, which it has no current intention of doing, or there will be no withdrawal agreement or transition, which is the default outcome.
How many cabinet ministers have been forced to resign in the last 6 months? This govt is a walking disaster zone.
Nothing like a marxist Corbyn government would be
With respect BigG, labelling a potential Labour government 'marxist' is a silly as calling the Tories 'fascist'. Both are about the same distance off the mark.
Are you saying a Corbyn government would not be hostile to the west and nato and pro Russia and the UK enemies. Of course it would be hard left marxist at its core
I find Corbyn a complete NO-NO.
Windrush will not change my vote, I was seriously considering voting Labour in the locals until Salisbury and Syria. Corbyn and Labour will not get any support from me as they are boarding on being 5th columnist. I cannot understand Corbyn siding with Russia, if it had been the Soviet Union I would understand the ideological reason for his comments even though I would disaprove. But in the recent circumstances his interventions and assertions are leaning toward the traitorous.
Off topic, I’ve had two texts this weekend from two normally loyal Tory members (both Leave voters) who both said they want May’s head if she capitulates on the Customs Union.
I think this is a serious moment for her.
Speaking to my lifelong Tory member mother, she feels the same, as does my Ex Kipper dad. CU will not go down well, and may well trigger a party Leadership confidence vote. I suspect that she would survive the vote and be protected from a further one for a year though. That will leave her a lame duck, but in that year she would be bulletproof.
If my understanding of Tory party procedures is correct.
Why would surviving a leadership challenge leave TMay a lame duck? Surely it would strengthen her hand?
It would take her past Brexit, but then there would be a further vote that she would not survive.
In practice, life as a bulletproof lameduck would be anything but comfortable.
We have a beautiful statue of a lame duck at home, left to us by a dear friend of my father’s. The Prince of Hesse had been held under house arrest in her custody during the war, and afterwards gave her the piece with the message “a lame duck from a lame duck” by way of thanks.
How many cabinet ministers have been forced to resign in the last 6 months? This govt is a walking disaster zone.
Nothing like a marxist Corbyn government would be
With respect BigG, labelling a potential Labour government 'marxist' is a silly as calling the Tories 'fascist'. Both are about the same distance off the mark.
Are you saying a Corbyn government would not be hostile to the west and nato and pro Russia and the UK enemies. Of course it would be hard left marxist at its core
I find Corbyn a complete NO-NO.
Windrush will not change my vote, I was seriously considering voting Labour in the locals until Salisbury and Syria. Corbyn and Labour will not get any support from me as they are boarding on being 5th columnist. I cannot understand Corbyn siding with Russia, if it had been the Soviet Union I would understand the ideological reason for his comments even though I would disaprove. But in the recent circumstances his interventions and assertions are leaning toward the traitorous.
Except that he hasn't sided with Russia - he's said that they are the obvious suspects in Salisbury but a response should follow full investigation and should then, if proved, include financial sanctions. He disagrees with the rush to judgment combined with token sanctions which avoid doing any actual harm to Russian financial interests. Labour's proposed financial sanctions look likely to be voted down in the Commons.
The difference between slow and serious vs quick and trivial showed itself over Syria too. Again, it looks likely that Russia's protege Assad launched the chemical attack, but rather than wait for the independent findings we rushed ahead in assisting Trump with a token intervention which everyone on all sides shrugged off. Similarly, we are nonchalantly attending the World Cup, but threatening that some officials might not go. Gosh.
As Corbyn has repeatedly said, he has nothing in common with the right-wing homophobic Russian regime. But he's committed to deliberate, more effective action, and that seems to me much more sensible: at present we are speaking loudly and carrying a twig.
Comments
If my understanding of Tory party procedures is correct.
Indeed it was
Favouritism is a useful heuristic: we have more confidence a German engineering graduate is better qualified than a Gabonese one. It may be wrong, but it is an efficient way to make a judgment.
Now, we know that a majority of the Commons wanted to Remain, and so the only reason they voted to Brexit was because of the referendum vote making opposing that difficult, so the only reason a CU might pass there is because MPs feel enough of the country would back that when they wouldn't regarding simply stopping the process altogether. But for May critics, if this is the only chance in a generation, possibly ever, to achieve what they feel is the only appropriate Brexit for the country, then frankly they should put that above party loyalty. Will a Corbyn government, facing the sorts of constraints any government is under, and however bad it might be, be worse, in their eyes, than probably never getting to renegotiate the kind of post-Brexit settlement we have?
If they think no, then why shouldn't they bring down May?
Why would surviving a leadership challenge leave TMay a lame duck? Surely it would strengthen her hand?
But actually, I think your premise is incorrect. If there were the votes for staying in the Customs union then it would have been an issue before now - they're have been two votes on it already, and the Govt have won both:
http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-customs-union-debate-must-end-once-and-for-all/
I think if it comes to a vote she loses. The politics is that a victory on numbers isn’t enough in this Parliament.
But politics is anything but technical. In reality, if May was reallytaking us down a line that was considered beyond the pale, there would be rebels on government business preventing anything passing. The ERG acting as a caucus, would, I imagine, simply abstain on issue after issue until May resigned.
Given leaving the CU was in the manifesto, if such a vote did arise I suspect it would amount to a vote of no confidence.
I'm talking more about the views of the general public. They are far more sceptical of immigration than you are. I would also imagine that retail workers, with their much greater exposure to the broader public, add to a feel of "there are a lot of immigrants here" more than other sectors.
I would also add that most shops in the US have American accents serving you. Even in New York you regularly hear them. Certainly in Chicago or DC. That's not true in London.
I'm going to be unbearably smug for the next few days.
It is always nice to tip a 33/1 winner.
Anyway, she's gone now, so the question once again becomes the perennial - will May do a larger reshuffle given this opportunity? Answer, no.
Wow. What a header...
I think an election either in late Summer or Autumn is a growing possibility.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/990698278256873473
I really should have a dabble at this betting milarky.
In practice, life as a bulletproof lameduck would be anything but comfortable.
At this rate, odds on a Labour landslide are looking better and better - with Corbyn in place, even after 12 years in office and a divisive Brexit that would seem unlikely, but if you add an aura of scandal or incompetence into the mix, and that chance rises despite the Corbyn factor. Certainly the chances of a Labour win are looking good - all they need to do is retain support, perhaps gain a little, and have the Tories dip only a little, and suddenly they are the ones with the options, coalition or otherwise.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/985837114184134657
It might be my imagination, but it feels like when the options are objectively pretty bad, for either side of the political spectrum at the same time, the political debate becomes that much nastier, since it has to come down to partisan emotion, since it is harder for Tories/Labour to defend/promote their sides on the basis of their actual qualities, so it becomes a slanging match about how awful the other lot are. To a higher degree than usual.
It's very popular with a minority of the public - a proportion of the 52%.
Well done, nonetheless.
NEW THREAD
Good night all.
The initial take - the resignation of a Cabinet Minister, holding one of the Great Offices of State no less, cannot be interpreted as anything but a moment of intense weakness for the government. May is even more deeply exposed than a regular PM would be, given she was the holder before Rudd. The story that prompted this was still in the news and causing trouble. And there is the constant difficulty of Brexit in the background. So this is a potentially significant moment for the government's image, direction and popularity. However, I am unclear on how outraged people are by the intentions of the policy in question. Certainly many of the most outraged are outraged by its intention. But if the general public are more concerned about the incompetence, then the government can mitigate the damage it takes if it is lucky and/or effective.
But it won't be easy.
I believe that any bureaucracy associated with work permits will act as a tariff. Paperwork is like that: it may not be explicit, but there is a cost with filling in forms and the like. And so as any future relationship we have with the EU will include a degree of paperwork, it will increase the costs of coming here. That will predominantly affect low skill, low wage workers. Now, we can disagree about the amount it will affect flows (I suspect it will have a surprisingly large affect.)
But if this did not have the desired affect, it's very easy to adjust it. We could start with a £50 fee to register a worker. And if that still led to excessive levels of immigration, you could change it: perhaps to £500 or £1,000.
Windrush will not change my vote, I was seriously considering voting Labour in the locals until Salisbury and Syria. Corbyn and Labour will not get any support from me as they are boarding on being 5th columnist. I cannot understand Corbyn siding with Russia, if it had been the Soviet Union I would understand the ideological reason for his comments even though I would disaprove. But in the recent circumstances his interventions and assertions are leaning toward the traitorous.
The difference between slow and serious vs quick and trivial showed itself over Syria too. Again, it looks likely that Russia's protege Assad launched the chemical attack, but rather than wait for the independent findings we rushed ahead in assisting Trump with a token intervention which everyone on all sides shrugged off. Similarly, we are nonchalantly attending the World Cup, but threatening that some officials might not go. Gosh.
As Corbyn has repeatedly said, he has nothing in common with the right-wing homophobic Russian regime. But he's committed to deliberate, more effective action, and that seems to me much more sensible: at present we are speaking loudly and carrying a twig.