The six tests, of which the concept is nicked from Brown frankly, can only be failed.
Of course. That is their purpose, to justify voting against whatever May proposes.
And it also ensures they will avoid getting any blame for a bad Brexit outcome, especially as they will probably propose indefinitely delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
"We would honour the Brexit vote, we just wouldn't have done it like the Tories did it" is definitely the sweet-spot political position in terms of appealing to Leave and Remain voters at the next election, even if it's not very principled.
Indeed. With respect to the Tories, they might try to point that out, but while it would not be very principled governments of the day rightly carry the biggest portion of blame for anything occurring, and rightly so.
We will only get a second referendum if Corbyn sits in Number 10. Even if a majority of MPs want a rematch, that won’t happen if the sitting government, which controls the Commons’ schedule, doesn’t give them the opportunity.
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should have the guts to call it at least somewhat more definitive than 50:50, even 60:40 - it's not as though if he is wrong it will hinder him any, being wrong doesn't stop pundits, commentators and reporters from getting work.
Being pedantic, if he calls it 60:40 in favour of a 2nd ref and it doesn't happen, he's not wrong - it's just that his forecast 40% chance occurred. He can only truly be wrong if he called it 100%* one way or another and it went the other way.
(*Or strictly, if he called it some other mix of percentages and neither of the two outcomes ensued - which seems logically impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend -now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be because she has had to dump Chequers, in which case the only possible coronation candidate is the man who first resigned over Chequers, David Davis on the basis of leading the push for a Canada type deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
Would the wider electorate?
The Tories polled as well under Davis v Corbyn as under May with Survation last summer and better than under Hammond or Rudd
The six tests, of which the concept is nicked from Brown frankly, can only be failed.
Of course. That is their purpose, to justify voting against whatever May proposes.
And it also ensures they will avoid getting any blame for a bad Brexit outcome, especially as they will probably propose indefinitely delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
"We would honour the Brexit vote, we just wouldn't have done it like the Tories did it" is definitely the sweet-spot political position in terms of appealing to Leave and Remain voters at the next election, even if it's not very principled.
And very dangerous.
Such an action would collapse the pound and cause economic chaos and it was all labours fault.
Indeed there are many wise labour mps will not go down that route
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should have the guts to call it at least somewhat more definitive than 50:50, even 60:40 - it's not as though if he is wrong it will hinder him any, being wrong doesn't stop pundits, commentators and reporters from getting work.
Being pedantic, if he calls it 60:40 in favour of a 2nd ref and it doesn't happen, he's not wrong - it's just that his forecast 40% chance occurred. He can only truly be wrong if he called it 100%* one way or another and it went the other way.
(*Or strictly, if he called it some other mix of percentages and neither of the two outcomes ensued - which seems logically impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend - I cannot envisage a situation where he does not attempt to push this through to the members.
But even besides Boris, I struggle to see the rest coalescing around one person and persuading the second placed to stand down. Sure, there's not really time for that nonsense right now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be because she has had to dump Chequers, in which case the only possible coronation candidate is the man who first resigned over Chequers, David Davis on the basis of leading the push for a Canada type deal
He failed - he had his chance and is just not the future. The only one in the frame is Hunt but I cannot see it hapening
Hunt tied himself to Chequers, if Chequers goes down so does his leadership prospects.
Plus I doubt the membership would accept a Hunt coronation
We will only get a second referendum if Corbyn sits in Number 10. Even if a majority of MPs want a rematch, that won’t happen if the sitting government, which controls the Commons’ schedule, doesn’t give them the opportunity.
That is why there will be no second referendum.
It probably won't happen, principally because TMay is blind to the fact that, properly framed, it could get her off the hook by letting the country decide whether whatever soft-Brexit deal she eventually agrees with the EU is preferable to no deal.
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should have the guts to call it at least somewhat more definitive than 50:50, even 60:40 - it's not as though if he is wrong it will hinder him any, being wrong doesn't stop pundits, commentators and reporters from getting work.
Being pedantic, if he calls it 60:40 in favour of a 2nd ref and it doesn't happen, he's not wrong - it's just that his forecast 40% chance occurred. He can only truly be wrong if he called it 100%* one way or another and it went the other way.
(*Or strictly, if he called it some other mix of percentages and neither of the two outcomes ensued - which seems logically impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend - I cannot envisage a situation where he does not attempt to push this through to the members.
But even besides Boris, I struggle to see the rest coalescing around one person and persuading the second placed to stand down. Sure, there's not really time for that nonsense right now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be because she has had to dump Chequers, in which case the only possible coronation candidate is the man who first resigned over Chequers, David Davis on the basis of leading the push for a Canada type deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
Would the wider electorate?
No of course not. He had 2 years to make an impact and failed
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should haveorters from getting work.
Being pely impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend - I cannot envisage a situation where he does not attempt to push this through to the members.
But even besides Boris, I struggle to see the rest coalescing around one person and persuading the second placed to stand down. Sure, there's not really time for that nonsense right now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be because she has had to dump Chequers, in which case the only possible coronation candidate is the man who first resigned over Chequers, David Davis on the basis of leading the push for a Canada type deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
If it is to be a coronation the m or that person, there would be time later to ditch them.
Once you ditch once you probably start developing a taste for it.
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
She's good, though I'm sure the PBTories will be sneering at her accent and her supposed "lack of intelligence" as I type. Not sure who I'd vote for if it's a Thornberry vs Rayner contest for this new female Deputy position.
At a time in which nearly 50% of young people are expected to go to university, is it really sneering to expect the same of the woman who is put forward by Labour to be responsible for education in England?
Good grief RoyalBlue, you really do come across as a parody of a crusty old Tunbridge Wells Tory at times.
Yes it is sneering to expect Labour (or any party) to only select graduates for ministerial positions.
Wanting to see educated people in charge of education is common sense to anyone not suffering from inverted snobbery.
What evidence do you have that she would do a good job, other than the fact that she’s not a lunatic Marxist and has yet to come out with a gaffe? What innovation is she proposing, other than halting the creation of any new free schools?
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should have the guts to call it at least somewhat more definitive than 50:50, even 60:40 - it's not as though if he is wrong it will hinder him any, being wrong doesn't stop pundits, commentators and reporters from getting work.
Being pedantic, if he calls it 60:40 in favour of a 2nd ref and it doesn't happen, he's not wrong - it's just that his forecast 40% chance occurred. He can only truly be wrong if he called it 100%* one way or another and it went the other way.
(*Or strictly, if he called it some other mix of percentages and neither of the two outcomes ensued - which seems logically impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend - I cannot envisage a situation where he does not attempt to push this through to the members.
But even besides Boris, I struggle to see the rest coalescing around one person and persuading the second placed to stand down. Sure, there's not really time for that nonsense right now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be because she htype deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
He will have the same effect with the left of the party and he is not acceptable
For the party to survive it has to be May or Hunt
The pro EU left of the party is a tiny fraction of it now, the bulk of the party in the country is anti Chequers and pro Canada Deal
The six tests, of which the concept is nicked from Brown frankly, can only be failed.
Of course. That is their purpose, to justify voting against whatever May proposes.
And it also ensures they will avoid getting any blame for a bad Brexit outcome, especially as they will probably propose indefinitely delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
"We would honour the Brexit vote, we just wouldn't have done it like the Tories did it" is definitely the sweet-spot political position in terms of appealing to Leave and Remain voters at the next election, even if it's not very principled.
And very dangerous.
Such an action would collapse the pound and cause economic chaos and it was all labours fault.
Indeed there are many wise labour mps will not go down that route
Why would such an action cause economic chaos? As I just said, if Parliament votes down the deal, I'm pretty sure Corbyn and McDonnell will propose delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
That doesn't mean that their proposal would be adopted by the government, or that the House would pass a Labour motion to that effect (since Tory Remain MPs are generally "all fart and no follow-through" on things like this), but that wouldn't be Corbyn's fault.
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should have the guts to call it at least somewhat more definitive than 50:50, even 60:40 - it's not as though if he is wrong it will hinder him any, being wrong doesn't stop pundits, commentators and reporters from getting work.
Being pedantic, if he calls it 60:40 in favour of a 2nd ref and it doesn't happen, he's not wrong - it's just that his forecast 40% chance occurred. He can only truly be wrong if he called it 100%* one way or another and it went the other way.
(*Or strictly, if he called it some other mix of percentages and neither of the two outcomes ensued - which seems logically impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend - I cannot envisage a situation where he does not attempt to push this through to the members.
But even besides Boris, I struggle to see the rest coalescing around one person and persuading the second placed to stand down. Sure, there's not really time for that nonsense right now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be becaur a Canada type deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
Would the wider electorate?
No of course not. He had 2 years to make an impact and failed
He was nearing an impact with Barnier on a transition deal and towards a Canada FTA until May dumped that and launched Chequers
Hunt tied himself to Chequers, if Chequers goes down so does his leadership prospects.
You keep saying this, and I still don't see why that is so. If we are to pivot away from Chequers as we should, it is abundantly clear it will be on the justification that the EU is just being darn unreasonable to our fine Chequers offer so we'll go with this backup. May has to go in that scenario, she really is inextricably tied to anything else, but the rest of the Cabinet can say they believed in it but sadly the EU are being irrational, so they'll go for something else.
Yes, it would be complete spin to say that, but no less than claiming Chequers is the heralding of the apocalypse, but one which it took a weekend to notice.
She's good, though I'm sure the PBTories will be sneering at her accent and her supposed "lack of intelligence" as I type. Not sure who I'd vote for if it's a Thornberry vs Rayner contest for this new female Deputy position.
At a time in which nearly 50% of young people are expected to go to university, is it really sneering to expect the same of the woman who is put forward by Labour to be responsible for education in England?
Good grief RoyalBlue, you really do come across as a parody of a crusty old Tunbridge Wells Tory at times.
Yes it is sneering to expect Labour (or any party) to only select graduates for ministerial positions.
If I'm pushed, I think the next leader will be one of Nandy or Rayner.
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should haveorters from getting work.
Being pely impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend - I cannot envisage a situation where he does not attempt to push this through to the members.
But even besides Boris, I struggle to see the rest coalescing around one person and persuading the second placed to stand down. Sure, there's not really time for that nonsense right now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be because she has had to dump Chequers, in which case the only possible coronation candidate is the man who first resigned over Chequers, David Davis on the basis of leading the push for a Canada type deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
If it is to be a coronation the m or that person, there would be time later to ditch them.
Once you ditch once you probably start developing a taste for it.
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
Put a hard Brexiteer in charge and you have civil war. I am surprised you are so dogmatic and cannot see it from the point of a unity candidate who at present is Hunt
She's good, though I'm sure the PBTories will be sneering at her accent and her supposed "lack of intelligence" as I type. Not sure who I'd vote for if it's a Thornberry vs Rayner contest for this new female Deputy position.
At a time in which nearly 50% of young people are expected to go to university, is it really sneering to expect the same of the woman who is put forward by Labour to be responsible for education in England?
Good grief RoyalBlue, you really do come across as a parody of a crusty old Tunbridge Wells Tory at times.
Yes it is sneering to expect Labour (or any party) to only select graduates for ministerial positions.
Wanting to see educated people in charge of education is common sense to anyone not suffering from inverted snobbery.
What evidence do you have that she would do a good job, other than the fact that she’s not a lunatic Marxist and has yet to come out with a gaffe? What innovation is she proposing, other than halting the creation of any new free schools?
No evidence at all. But look at the mess quite a few 'well-educated' predecessors (of both parties) have made of education!
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
It's a matter of priorities - if a deal is vital now then that is the priority, even if they have to ditch the interim leader quickly afterwards. A civil war among the MPs is more pressing a problem than one of the membership in the short and medium term, and they need to tackle that to get something through the Commons. If that means creating a problem with the membership, well, that's something they can try to resolve tomorrow.
We will only get a second referendum if Corbyn sits in Number 10. Even if a majority of MPs want a rematch, that won’t happen if the sitting government, which controls the Commons’ schedule, doesn’t give them the opportunity.
That is why there will be no second referendum.
It probably won't happen, principally because TMay is blind to the fact that, properly framed, it could get her off the hook by letting the country decide whether whatever soft-Brexit deal she eventually agrees with the EU is preferable to no deal.
Properly framed is probably the issue. Since Labour won't back her deal (they'd probably sit out the campaign, or say that even if no deal is backed the Commons won't let that happen somehow), and nor will anyone else bar presumably the DUP in this scenario, and she is bound to have a significant rump of MPs against it, she is probably rightfully worried she would be unable to convince the public to back said soft brexit over no deal. In which case the best option from her point of view is to capitulate to the EU while trying to look as though she isn't, and accept that the party will take a huge hit for doing so, and then hope under a new leader the party can rebuild before 2022.
The six tests, of which the concept is nicked from Brown frankly, can only be failed.
Of course. That is their purpose, to justify voting against whatever May proposes.
And it also ensures they will avoid getting any blame for a bad Brexit outcome, especially as they will probably propose indefinitely delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
"We would honour the Brexit vote, we just wouldn't have done it like the Tories did it" is definitely the sweet-spot political position in terms of appealing to Leave and Remain voters at the next election, even if it's not very principled.
And very dangerous.
Such an action would collapse the pound and cause economic chaos and it was all labours fault.
Indeed there are many wise labour mps will not go down that route
Why would such an action cause economic chaos? As I just said, if Parliament votes down the deal, I'm pretty sure Corbyn and McDonnell will propose delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
That doesn't mean that their proposal would be adopted by the government, or that the House would pass a Labour motion to that effect (since Tory Remain MPs are generally "all fart and no follow-through" on things like this), but that wouldn't be Corbyn's fault.
If the deal is lost to labour voting it down the market reaction will be immediate and nasty
She's good, though I'm sure the PBTories will be sneering at her accent and her supposed "lack of intelligence" as I type. Not sure who I'd vote for if it's a Thornberry vs Rayner contest for this new female Deputy position.
At a time in which nearly 50% of young people are expected to go to university, is it really sneering to expect the same of the woman who is put forward by Labour to be responsible for education in England?
Good grief RoyalBlue, you really do come across as a parody of a crusty old Tunbridge Wells Tory at times.
Yes it is sneering to expect Labour (or any party) to only select graduates for ministerial positions.
Wanting to see educated people in charge of education is common sense to anyone not suffering from inverted snobbery.
What evidence do you have that she would do a good job, other than the fact that she’s not a lunatic Marxist and has yet to come out with a gaffe? What innovation is she proposing, other than halting the creation of any new free schools?
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should have the guts to call it at least somewhat more definitive than 50:50, even 60:40 - it's not as though if he is wrong it will hinder him any, being wrong doesn't stop pundits, commentators and reporters from getting work.
Being pedantic, if he calls it 60:40 in favour of a 2nd ref and it doesn't happen, he's not wrong - it's just that his forecast 40% chance occurred. He can only truly be wrong if he called it 100%* one way or another and it went the other way.
(*Or strictly, if he called it some other mix of percentages and neither of the two outcomes ensued - which seems logically impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend -now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be because she has had to dump Chequers, in which case the only possible coronation candidate is the man who first resigned over Chequers, David Davis on the basis of leading the push for a Canada type deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
Would the wider electorate?
The Tories polled as well under Davis v Corbyn as under May with Survation last summer and better than under Hammond or Rudd
What I meant was another PM installed via an internal Party stitch-up in the name of spurious Tory unity? The trick was tried not long ago.
Shame I missed the trains nationalisation debate, a PB fave which always makes me laugh.
The privateers’ argument seems to be reduced nowadays to “but, BR”.
It’s not clear why a investment-starved organisation that was abolished a generation ago serves as a better example than, er, TfL, the most popular railway in the U.K, or the recently renationalised East Coast Mainline, which was run so successfully during its previous stint under public control passenger satisfaction reached record levels.
My favourites from the last thread were SeanT praising a railway which is owned by the German state, and Casino Royale attacking nationalised rail while being employed as a manager on one of the largest nationalised rail projects in the world.
It's not what a lot of people will have heard though. They heard 'people's vote'.
I do like the BBC's headline on the politics page. "Starmer insists Labour 'clear' on EU vote" with a subheading of "It comes after confusion over Labour's stance".
It is usually amusing when politicians are caught saying something so obviously opposite to reality, unfortunately we are getting a lot of that from the government too so it is not quite as funny.
She's good, though I'm sure the PBTories will be sneering at her accent and her supposed "lack of intelligence" as I type. Not sure who I'd vote for if it's a Thornberry vs Rayner contest for this new female Deputy position.
At a time in which nearly 50% of young people are expected to go to university, is it really sneering to expect the same of the woman who is put forward by Labour to be responsible for education in England?
Good grief RoyalBlue, you really do come across as a parody of a crusty old Tunbridge Wells Tory at times.
Yes it is sneering to expect Labour (or any party) to only select graduates for ministerial positions.
Wanting to see educated people in charge of education is common sense to anyone not suffering from inverted snobbery.
What evidence do you have that she would do a good job, other than the fact that she’s not a lunatic Marxist and has yet to come out with a gaffe? What innovation is she proposing, other than halting the creation of any new free schools?
No evidence at all. But look at the mess quite a few 'well-educated' predecessors (of both parties) have made of education!
It’s definitely not a guarantee of good outcomes, but I would argue it’s a prerequisite for success in the job.
Hunt tied himself to Chequers, if Chequers goes down so does his leadership prospects.
You keep saying this, and I still don't see why that is so. If we are to pivot away from Chequers as we should, it is abundantly clear it will be on the justification that the EU is just being darn unreasonable to our fine Chequers offer so we'll go with this backup. May has to go in that scenario, she really is inextricably tied to anything else, but the rest of the Cabinet can say they believed in it but sadly the EU are being irrational, so they'll go for something else.
Yes, it would be complete spin to say that, but no less than claiming Chequers is the heralding of the apocalypse, but one which it took a weekend to notice.
You cannot have someone leading a change of course on Brexit who was a pivotal supporter of the failed Brexit policy that has just had to be scrapped
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Despite the practical difficulties that remain in getting one agreed, I can see one happening, but even assuming he felt pushed to make an estimate of how likely it would be I don't see how in the hell he has decided 50:50 are the chances, and it sounds like something plucked completely from thin air, particularly we still don't have a major party definitively committing to one yet, or what form it would take even if they did.
True but he can never be wrong, guessing 50:50, can he?
He should haveorters from getting work.
Being pely impossible.)
Pedantry? On PB?! I never thought I'd live to see the day such a venerable institution came to such a pass.
Scenario is he doesn't come in the top 2. I don't think MPs would put him into the top 2 in any scenario but certainly not this scenario.
I'll amend - I cannot envisage a situation where he does not attempt to push this through to the members.
But even besides Boris, I struggle to see the rest coalescing around one person and persuading the second placed to stand down. Sure, there's not really time for that nonsense right now, but there hasn't been for awhile and it hasn't stopped constant speculation.
If May goes then it will be becaor a Canada type deal
What a dreadful thought. You're probably right, and better than Boris.
Davis is also the only candidate bar Boris or Mogg the Tory membership would accept being given a coronation now
If it is to be a coronation the m or that person, there would be time later to ditch them.
Once you ditch once you probably start developing a taste for it.
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
Put a hard Brexiteer in charge and you have civil war. I am surprised you are so dogmatic and cannot see it from the point of a unity candidate who at present is Hunt
Hunt is not the unity candidate, if you want a civil war you will get it with a pro Chequers Deal candidate being imposed on the membership without them even getting a say just after May would have been dumped because of the failure of her Chequers Deal.
Hunt tied himself to Chequers, if Chequers goes down so does his leadership prospects.
You keep saying this, and I still don't see why that is so. If we are to pivot away from Chequers as we should, it is abundantly clear it will be on the justification that the EU is just being darn unreasonable to our fine Chequers offer so we'll go with this backup. May has to go in that scenario, she really is inextricably tied to anything else, but the rest of the Cabinet can say they believed in it but sadly the EU are being irrational, so they'll go for something else.
Yes, it would be complete spin to say that, but no less than claiming Chequers is the heralding of the apocalypse, but one which it took a weekend to notice.
You cannot have someone leading a change of course on Brexit who was a pivotal supporter of the failed Brexit policy that has just had to be scrapped
Of course you can. Unless you think Davis would also immediately get rid of all of the Cabinet when he takes over then everyone in it would have switched to supporting the new policy, with a justification for how it is not even a contradiction to do so (that is, the EU was unreasonable, not us).
And what exactly has made him more pivotal a supporter of it than anyone else? That you think he would not be suitable I understand, but I cannot see what about him is specifically unsuitable compared to any others in Cabinet.
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
It's a matter of priorities - if a deal is vital now then that is the priority, even if they have to ditch the interim leader quickly afterwards. A civil war among the MPs is more pressing a problem than one of the membership in the short and medium term, and they need to tackle that to get something through the Commons. If that means creating a problem with the membership, well, that's something they can try to resolve tomorrow.
Davis is the only candidate who could get the support of enough MPs, unlike Boris and enough members, unlike Hunt, to be the unity candidate and viable for a coronation
Shame I missed the trains nationalisation debate, a PB fave which always makes me laugh.
The privateers’ argument seems to be reduced nowadays to “but, BR”.
It’s not clear why a investment-starved organisation that was abolished a generation ago serves as a better example than, er, TfL, the most popular railway in the U.K, or the recently renationalised East Coast Mainline, which was run so successfully during its previous stint under public control passenger satisfaction reached record levels.
My favourites from the last thread were SeanT praising a railway which is owned by the German state, and Casino Royale attacking nationalised rail while being employed as a manager on one of the largest nationalised rail projects in the world.
But, is it a first term priority? How much will be spent nationalising rail? Popular - yes? But wise when say local government and social care are screaming for money?
The six tests, of which the concept is nicked from Brown frankly, can only be failed.
Of course. That is their purpose, to justify voting against whatever May proposes.
And it also ensures they will avoid getting any blame for a bad Brexit outcome, especially as they will probably propose indefinitely delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
"We would honour the Brexit vote, we just wouldn't have done it like the Tories did it" is definitely the sweet-spot political position in terms of appealing to Leave and Remain voters at the next election, even if it's not very principled.
And very dangerous.
Such an action would collapse the pound and cause economic chaos and it was all labours fault.
Indeed there are many wise labour mps will not go down that route
Why would such an action cause economic chaos? As I just said, if Parliament votes down the deal, I'm pretty sure Corbyn and McDonnell will propose delaying Brexit until a deal is negotiated.
That doesn't mean that their proposal would be adopted by the government, or that the House would pass a Labour motion to that effect (since Tory Remain MPs are generally "all fart and no follow-through" on things like this), but that wouldn't be Corbyn's fault.
If the deal is lost to labour voting it down the market reaction will be immediate and nasty
But it won't be lost because of that. Labour does not have a majority. Like it or not, the Conservatives are the Brexit Party, and the government. If it goes to pot, it will be them to the uninterested observer. Which is not to say that would be necessarily correct or fair. Just politics.
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
It's a matter of priorities - if a deal is vital now then that is the priority, even if they have to ditch the interim leader quickly afterwards. A civil war among the MPs is more pressing a problem than one of the membership in the short and medium term, and they need to tackle that to get something through the Commons. If that means creating a problem with the membership, well, that's something they can try to resolve tomorrow.
Davis is the only candidate who could get the support of enough MPs, unlike Boris and enough members, unlike Hunt, to be the unity candidate and viable for a coronation
I think Davis makes more sense in the event of a pivot in position, but I think you are severely underestimating the ability of politicians to change tactics if they have to and, given the time pressures, the importance of the members in the event of a coronation, and therefore the supposed unsuitability of any other candidates.
But, is it a first term priority? How much will be spent nationalising rail? Popular - yes? But wise when say local government and social care are screaming for money?
Nothing. The basic plan is to renationalise when the franchises expire, at a cost of £0. McDonnell has said he'll explore ways of ending the franchises early if he decides to do it (which I doubt), which would cost something, but it depends how it's done.
Obviously, the issue then will be providing it with sufficient support to avoid the historical starving of BR. But there's a lot more interest these days in running the rail system well, so I suspect it will get more priority.
I may have misheard, but Peston, I think, just said on ITV news, that 2nd referendum is now 50:50.
Wow.
Whatever the chances of a second referendum, they are worse tonight than they were two days ago.
The bottom line is that Corbyn/McDonnell/McClusky et al have succeeded in manipulating their Conference agenda so that the resolution that will go forward in response to over 100 resolutions demanding a referendum will in fact commit Labour to do absolutely nothing. Corbyn's hands are not tied, as he feared they might be, because he has managed to retain absolute control over the Conference agenda.
Everything else is just fluff.
My understanding is the labour party, labour movement, and supporters of the party in the country are now decisively not just for soft ‘Jobs Brexit’ but for remain, on Tuesday their party overwhelmingly endorses a motion keeping open option of 2nd ref with no words excluded from that ballot,
Yes, clearly the composite does not rule out a #peoplesvote including Remain. It is a significant defeat for the leadership. They were astute enough to soften it rather than lose a fight over it.
It looks to me that Labour are managing their conference well.
Watching these conferences as a child, I thought they looked just like Soviet Union politburos, them up there, rest of us down here. And you know what, then up pops John Major saying when he first went to conference he thought it looked just like Soviet Union too.
But Yes, tomorrow that’s the nature of democracy, where you have to be prepared to lose sometimes and make the best of it. The shadow cabinet were beaten by sheer weight of party requests for this. Brexiteers in Labour, closeted or open, just massively outnumbered now regardless what lofty role they are in.
And let’s be honest, they have kept themselves in the closet. Play the game of carefully watching them talk brexit, careful not to out themselves. Coming out of EU, particularly CU is a subject that can really colour someones view of you and how they rate your fashion and philosophy, so unless its important why would you do that to yourself? Note how often McDon and Corb say CU, it’s because they have to. Forget spy games and Antisemtism, Europe is an issue that can hurt McDon and Corb because their own trendy young power base don’t want extreme form of Brexit, the sort Bennites like Corb and John been arguing for all their careers till 2015. in fact the labour party, labour movement, and supporters of the party in the country are now decisively not just for soft ‘Jobs Brexit’ but for remain.
Hunt tied himself to Chequers, if Chequers goes down so does his leadership prospects.
You keep saying this, and I still don't see why that is so. If we are to pivot away from Chequers as we should, it is abundantly clear it will be on the justification that the EU is just being darn unreasonable to our fine Chequers offer so we'll go with this backup. May has to go in that scenario, she really is inextricably tied to anything else, but the rest of the Cabinet can say they believed in it but sadly the EU are being irrational, so they'll go for something else.
Yes, it would be complete spin to say that, but no less than claiming Chequers is the heralding of the apocalypse, but one which it took a weekend to notice.
You cannot have someone leading a change of course on Brexit who was a pivotal supporter of the failed Brexit policy that has just had to be scrapped
Of course you can. Unless you think Davis would also immediately get rid of all of the Cabinet when he takes over then everyone in it would have switched to supporting the new policy, with a justification for how it is not even a contradiction to do so (that is, the EU was unreasonable, not us).
And what exactly has made him more pivotal a supporter of it than anyone else? That you think he would not be suitable I understand, but I cannot see what about him is specifically unsuitable compared to any others in Cabinet.
No Chequers Deal supporter can lead the party if the Chequers Deal is dumped, it would simply not be credible, it is also increasingly clear that if Brexit is delivered we cannot have another Remainer trying to do the delivering
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
It's a matter of priorities - if a deal is vital now then that is the priority, even if they have to ditch the interim leader quickly afterwards. A civil war among the MPs is more pressing a problem than one of the membership in the short and medium term, and they need to tackle that to get something through the Commons. If that means creating a problem with the membership, well, that's something they can try to resolve tomorrow.
Davis is the only candidate who could get the support of enough MPs, unlike Boris and enough members, unlike Hunt, to be the unity candidate and viable for a coronation
I think Davis makes more sense in the event of a pivot in position, but I think you are severely underestimating the ability of politicians to change tactics if they have to and, given the time pressures, the importance of the members in the event of a coronation, and therefore the supposed unsuitability of any other candidates.
It is the members who do the work at election time, no party leader can be imposed on them without a say who is not going to command their support
Hunt tied himself to Chequers, if Chequers goes down so does his leadership prospects.
You keep saying this, and I still don't see why that is so. If we are to pivot away from Chequers as we should, it is abundantly clear it will be on the justification that the EU is just being darn unreasonable to our fine Chequers offer so we'll go with this backup. May has to go in that scenario, she really is inextricably tied to anything else, but the rest of the Cabinet can say they believed in it but sadly the EU are being irrational, so they'll go for something else.
Yes, it would be complete spin to say that, but no less than claiming Chequers is the heralding of the apocalypse, but one which it took a weekend to notice.
You cannot have someone leading a change of course on Brexit who was a pivotal supporter of the failed Brexit policy that has just had to be scrapped
Of course you can. Unless you think Davis would also immediately get rid of all of the Cabinet when he takes over then everyone in it would have switched to supporting the new policy, with a justification for how it is not even a contradiction to do so (that is, the EU was unreasonable, not us).
And what exactly has made him more pivotal a supporter of it than anyone else? That you think he would not be suitable I understand, but I cannot see what about him is specifically unsuitable compared to any others in Cabinet.
No Chequers Deal supporter can lead the party if the Chequers Deal is dumped, it would simply not be credible
To you. I've already explained how they could justify such a switch. Would that satisfy everyone? No, but to suggest they cannot find a way to support another option is, I would suggest, not credible.
She's good, though I'm sure the PBTories will be sneering at her accent and her supposed "lack of intelligence" as I type. Not sure who I'd vote for if it's a Thornberry vs Rayner contest for this new female Deputy position.
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
It's a matter of priorities - if a deal is vital now then that is the priority, even if they have to ditch the interim leader quickly afterwards. A civil war among the MPs is more pressing a problem than one of the membership in the short and medium term, and they need to tackle that to get something through the Commons. If that means creating a problem with the membership, well, that's something they can try to resolve tomorrow.
Davis is the only candidate who could get the support of enough MPs, unlike Boris and enough members, unlike Hunt, to be the unity candidate and viable for a coronation
I think Davis makes more sense in the event of a pivot in position, but I think you are severely underestimating the ability of politicians to change tactics if they have to and, given the time pressures, the importance of the members in the event of a coronation, and therefore the supposed unsuitability of any other candidates.
It is the members who do the work at election time, no party leader can be imposed on them without a say who is not going to command their support
You are completely ignoring my point, since I mentioned on several occasions the interim leader could be dropped later if they were a problem with the membership, and this was about a leader who could get the MPs behind a deal. It wasn't about getting behind said leader at an election, since the whole point of a coronation to get a deal would be to avoid a GE any time soon.
Hunt tied himself to Chequers, if Chequers goes down so does his leadership prospects.
You keep saying this, and I still don't see why that is so. If we are to pivot away from Chequers as we should, it is abundantly clear it will be on the justification that the EU is just being darn unreasonable to our fine Chequers offer so we'll go with this backup. May has to go in that scenario, she really is inextricably tied to anything else, but the rest of the Cabinet can say they believed in it but sadly the EU are being irrational, so they'll go for something else.
Yes, it would be complete spin to say that, but no less than claiming Chequers is the heralding of the apocalypse, but one which it took a weekend to notice.
You cannot have someone leading a change of course on Brexit who was a pivotal supporter of the failed Brexit policy that has just had to be scrapped
Of course you can. Unless you think Davis would also immediately get rid of all of the Cabinet when he takes over then everyone in it would have switched to supporting the new policy, with a justification for how it is not even a contradiction to do so (that is, the EU was unreasonable, not us).
And what exactly has made him more pivotal a supporter of it than anyone else? That you think he would not be suitable I understand, but I cannot see what about him is specifically unsuitable compared to any others in Cabinet.
No Chequers Deal supporter can lead the party if the Chequers Deal is dumped, it would simply not be credible
To you. I've already explained how they could justify such a switch. Would that satisfy everyone? No, but to suggest they cannot find a way to support another option is, I would suggest, not credible.
Good night.
No it is not credible to impose a pro Chequers Deal candidate on the party when the Chequers Deal has been dumped. Especially as a general election may be needed sooner rather than later for any new leader to get a mandate for a Canada Deal without the need of the DUP and it is party members who will be doing the groundwork in that election
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
It's a matter of priorities - if a deal is vital now then that is the priority, even if they have to ditch the interim leader quickly afterwards. A civil war among the MPs is more pressing a problem than one of the membership in the short and medium term, and they need to tackle that to get something through the Commons. If that means creating a problem with the membership, well, that's something they can try to resolve tomorrow.
Davis is the only candidate who could get the support of enough MPs, unlike Boris and enough members, unlike Hunt, to be the unity candidate and viable for a coronation
I think Davis makes more sense in the event of a pivot in position, but I think you are severely underestimating the ability of politicians to change tactics if they have to and, given the time pressures, the importance of the members in the event of a coronation, and therefore the supposed unsuitability of any other candidates.
It is the members who do the work at election time, no party leader can be imposed on them without a say who is not going to command their support
You are completely ignoring my point, since I mentioned on several occasions the interim leader could be dropped later if they were a problem with the membership, and this was about a leader who could get the MPs behind a deal. It wasn't about getting behind said leader at an election, since the whole point of a coronation to get a deal would be to avoid a GE any time soon.
Except unless the DUP suddenly have a Damascene conversion to the backstop a general election may well be needed sooner rather than later for the new leader to get a majority for a Canada Deal
Except unless the DUP suddenly have a Damascene conversion to the backstop a general election may well be needed sooner rather than later for the new leader to get a majority for a Canada Deal
Except unless the DUP suddenly have a Damascene conversion to the backstop a general election may well be needed sooner rather than later for the new leader to get a majority for a Canada Deal
What if the DUP backed a second referendum?
The DUP backed Leave, more likely they would back No Deal.
The other main NI parties, the UUP, the Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Fein all backed Remain and might support a second referendum though they would also be more supportive than the DUP of a backstop to avoid a hard border in Ireland
My favourites from the last thread were SeanT praising a railway which is owned by the German state
More than that.
SeanT was justly praising Chiltern, who are indeed the best private railway operator in Britain.
This is despite being owned by Deutsche Bahn. Chiltern were established by a bunch of ex-BR managers, principally the sainted Adrian Shooter, in an MBO vehicle called M40 Trains. They got the investment/subsidy/revenue recipe just right to get a 15-year contract from the (then) SRA, which enabled them to invest in a whole bunch of infrastructure improvements... which in turn facilitated a more intensive, lucrative service.
M40 Trains were co-owned by John Laing, one of the Jarvis-era PFI companies whose fortunes were about to take a severe downturn. Laing were smart enough to sell out at the height of the market. They sold to Arriva, the renamed Tom Cowie & Co bus company who had been bought by Deutsche Bahn.
Arriva are genuinely sh-t. They run CrossCountry and Arriva Trains Wales which are the two most underinvested franchises on the entire network, both renowned for price-gouging rather than customer service. DB have done nothing to change this. I once sat next to a voluble Irishman on a delayed-to-standstill, overcrowded CrossCountry service who was loudly proclaiming "Angela Merkel wouldn't stand for this on her railways". I told him that this train was actually owned by Angela Merkel. Last I heard, he was going to write to her, because he couldn't believe she would put up with this. I do wonder what she responded.
She's good, though I'm sure the PBTories will be sneering at her accent and her supposed "lack of intelligence" as I type. Not sure who I'd vote for if it's a Thornberry vs Rayner contest for this new female Deputy position.
Rayner. She’s the new George Osborne.
Surely she is the anti George Osborne - she wasn't born will a silver spoon in her mouth. As for not having a degree even better - she has learned to think for herself and hasn't been brainwashed into collective group think. Well not until she joined Corbyn's shadow cabinet anyway!
You cannot impose a candidate on the membership they will not accept without a party civil war
It's a matter of priorities - if a deal is vital now then that is the priority, even if they have to ditch the interim leader quickly afterwards. A civil war among the MPs is more pressing a problem than one of the membership in the short and medium term, and they need to tackle that to get something through the Commons. If that means creating a problem with the membership, well, that's something they can try to resolve tomorrow.
Davis is the only candidate who could get the support of enough MPs, unlike Boris and enough members, unlike Hunt, to be the unity candidate and viable for a coronation
I think Davis makes more sense in the event of a pivot in position, but I think you are severely underestimating the ability of politicians to change tactics if they have to and, given the time pressures, the importance of the members in the event of a coronation, and therefore the supposed unsuitability of any other candidates.
It is the members who do the work at election time, no party leader can be imposed on them without a say who is not going to command their support
You are completely ignoring my point, since I mentioned on several occasions the interim leader could be dropped later if they were a problem with the membership, and this was about a leader who could get the MPs behind a deal. It wasn't about getting behind said leader at an election, since the whole point of a coronation to get a deal would be to avoid a GE any time soon.
Except unless the DUP suddenly have a Damascene conversion to the backstop a general election may well be needed sooner rather than later for the new leader to get a majority for a Canada Deal
You don't seem to understand that it is not the DUP who are causing the problem. You are (apparently) a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party. A very large number of Tory MPs would not accept NI being in a separate customs territory because it clearly undermines the union and would not be acceptable in any self-respecting country.
The problem was caused by the EU asking for something totally unnecessary and unacceptable, and for your idiotic leader who tried to go along with it without apparently realising it could never be delivered.
A GE won't make Tory MPs vote for this. Nor should they.
But, is it a first term priority? How much will be spent nationalising rail? Popular - yes? But wise when say local government and social care are screaming for money?
Nothing. The basic plan is to renationalise when the franchises expire, at a cost of £0. McDonnell has said he'll explore ways of ending the franchises early if he decides to do it (which I doubt), which would cost something, but it depends how it's done.
Obviously, the issue then will be providing it with sufficient support to avoid the historical starving of BR. But there's a lot more interest these days in running the rail system well, so I suspect it will get more priority.
It is not a 'plan'. There are no details about how the rest of the network - for instance freight and OA operators - will be handled, or what the structure of the whole thing will be.
These matter, and Labour are utterly clueless about it. Which is a shame, as the success or failure of any renationalisation depends on the structure that is chosen. Instead, they're just screeching 'RENATIONALISATION' out their arse.
As an example, many of the failures that we are seeing on the network are down to the DfT. That would suggest that keeping the DfT and central government as much out of the structure as possible would be vital.
Comments
That is why there will be no second referendum.
Such an action would collapse the pound and cause economic chaos and it was all labours fault.
Indeed there are many wise labour mps will not go down that route
Plus I doubt the membership would accept a Hunt coronation
What evidence do you have that she would do a good job, other than the fact that she’s not a lunatic Marxist and has yet to come out with a gaffe? What innovation is she proposing, other than halting the creation of any new free schools?
That doesn't mean that their proposal would be adopted by the government, or that the House would pass a Labour motion to that effect (since Tory Remain MPs are generally "all fart and no follow-through" on things like this), but that wouldn't be Corbyn's fault.
Yes, it would be complete spin to say that, but no less than claiming Chequers is the heralding of the apocalypse, but one which it took a weekend to notice.
Davis had 2 years operating within the confines of what May permitted.
The privateers’ argument seems to be reduced nowadays to “but, BR”.
It’s not clear why a investment-starved organisation that was abolished a generation ago serves as a better example than, er, TfL, the most popular railway in the U.K, or the recently renationalised East Coast Mainline, which was run so successfully during its previous stint under public control passenger satisfaction reached record levels.
My favourites from the last thread were SeanT praising a railway which is owned by the German state, and Casino Royale attacking nationalised rail while being employed as a manager on one of the largest nationalised rail projects in the world.
I do like the BBC's headline on the politics page. "Starmer insists Labour 'clear' on EU vote" with a subheading of "It comes after confusion over Labour's stance".
It is usually amusing when politicians are caught saying something so obviously opposite to reality, unfortunately we are getting a lot of that from the government too so it is not quite as funny.
And what exactly has made him more pivotal a supporter of it than anyone else? That you think he would not be suitable I understand, but I cannot see what about him is specifically unsuitable compared to any others in Cabinet.
Have a good nights rest everyone
Good night folks
Which is not to say that would be necessarily correct or fair. Just politics.
Obviously, the issue then will be providing it with sufficient support to avoid the historical starving of BR. But there's a lot more interest these days in running the rail system well, so I suspect it will get more priority.
But Yes, tomorrow that’s the nature of democracy, where you have to be prepared to lose sometimes and make the best of it. The shadow cabinet were beaten by sheer weight of party requests for this. Brexiteers in Labour, closeted or open, just massively outnumbered now regardless what lofty role they are in.
And let’s be honest, they have kept themselves in the closet. Play the game of carefully watching them talk brexit, careful not to out themselves. Coming out of EU, particularly CU is a subject that can really colour someones view of you and how they rate your fashion and philosophy, so unless its important why would you do that to yourself? Note how often McDon and Corb say CU, it’s because they have to. Forget spy games and Antisemtism, Europe is an issue that can hurt McDon and Corb because their own trendy young power base don’t want extreme form of Brexit, the sort Bennites like Corb and John been arguing for all their careers till 2015. in fact the labour party, labour movement, and supporters of the party in the country are now decisively not just for soft ‘Jobs Brexit’ but for remain.
Good night.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/michel-barnier-confirms-david-davis-brexit-deal-warning/
The other main NI parties, the UUP, the Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Fein all backed Remain and might support a second referendum though they would also be more supportive than the DUP of a backstop to avoid a hard border in Ireland
SeanT was justly praising Chiltern, who are indeed the best private railway operator in Britain.
This is despite being owned by Deutsche Bahn. Chiltern were established by a bunch of ex-BR managers, principally the sainted Adrian Shooter, in an MBO vehicle called M40 Trains. They got the investment/subsidy/revenue recipe just right to get a 15-year contract from the (then) SRA, which enabled them to invest in a whole bunch of infrastructure improvements... which in turn facilitated a more intensive, lucrative service.
M40 Trains were co-owned by John Laing, one of the Jarvis-era PFI companies whose fortunes were about to take a severe downturn. Laing were smart enough to sell out at the height of the market. They sold to Arriva, the renamed Tom Cowie & Co bus company who had been bought by Deutsche Bahn.
Arriva are genuinely sh-t. They run CrossCountry and Arriva Trains Wales which are the two most underinvested franchises on the entire network, both renowned for price-gouging rather than customer service. DB have done nothing to change this. I once sat next to a voluble Irishman on a delayed-to-standstill, overcrowded CrossCountry service who was loudly proclaiming "Angela Merkel wouldn't stand for this on her railways". I told him that this train was actually owned by Angela Merkel. Last I heard, he was going to write to her, because he couldn't believe she would put up with this. I do wonder what she responded.
Where's Sunil when you need him?
The problem was caused by the EU asking for something totally unnecessary and unacceptable, and for your idiotic leader who tried to go along with it without apparently realising it could never be delivered.
A GE won't make Tory MPs vote for this. Nor should they.
These matter, and Labour are utterly clueless about it. Which is a shame, as the success or failure of any renationalisation depends on the structure that is chosen. Instead, they're just screeching 'RENATIONALISATION' out their arse.
As an example, many of the failures that we are seeing on the network are down to the DfT. That would suggest that keeping the DfT and central government as much out of the structure as possible would be vital.